Dracula
Dracula
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 68
Joined: Apr 14, 2014
April 20th, 2014 at 9:34:38 AM permalink
Quote: wz60

This is also the answer to ThatDonGuy:

Doing the test from a player's perspective:

You are going to a Casino and you are going to do Baccarat for 250k shoes, shoe by shoe. Ignoring all ties, you start from hand #9 to the end of the shoe. When you see the previous 8 hands are BPPPPPPP then you bet B. You win if it turns out to be B and you loss if P. You record all your bets and the results of wins and losses then you have the result for all 250k shoes.

Does this make sense?




I think so...
wild-goose chase : An impractical and ill-advised search for something nonexistent or unobtainable; a foolish and useless quest; a futile or hopeless enterprise. Originally, a wild-goose chase was a horse race where the second and all succeeding horses had to follow the leader at definite intervals, thus resembling wild geese in flight. Since the second horse was not allowed to overtake the first, it would become exhausted in its futile chase. It has alternately been suggested that wild-goose chase may refer to the difficulty of capturing a wild goose, implying that even if caught, the prize is of little value.

Is that what you mean by bpppppppb?
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
April 20th, 2014 at 9:59:56 AM permalink
Quote: wz60

Let me make this clear: I am willing to admit that I am wrong if anyone can prove that I am wrong.


Your own results have already demonstrated that you are wrong. You just don't see it. Here's what you wrote:
Quote:

Shoe Size (k)/B-Win-Chance after 7P:
1 55.55556 %
5 53.05085
10 52.00507


To put that in plainer English, you are hunting for an extremely rare event: a bank win followed by 7 player wins, and then your theory is that the next non-tie outcome will favor bank significantly more than the expected overall probability.
After 1000 shoes, the observed conditional probability of a bank win after the rare event was 55.55556%.
After 5000 shoes, the observed conditional probability of a bank win after the rare event was 53.05085%.
After 10000 shoes, the observed conditional probability of a bank win after the rare event was 52.00507%.

As a result, the 4000 shoes subsequent to the first 1000 demonstrated an average conditional probability of 52.42467%.
Further, while the first 5000 shoes showed 53.05085%, the second 5000 demonstrated a conditional probability of 50.95929%.

So clearly the "win chance" of your target play isn't 55.555% after 1000 shoes. That happened to be what you observed for those particular 1000 shoes, but how many times did the event happen during those shoes anyway? A dozen or two? If so, your sample size is far too small. If you were looking at 9 total occurrences of the rare event, your most likely number of successes afterwards would either be 4 or 5, leading to 44.44% or 55.55%. The latter is what you observed. Like I said before, your methodology is like tossing a coin a few dozen times, observing that heads occurred 51.3% of the time, and then confidently concluding that the probability of heads for all coin flips is 51.3%. It might feel like it, especially if you've got money on the line, but it's just superstition and confirmation bias messing with your head. I was playing craps earlier this week and had a terrible run: I was betting continuous-come and rolling a lot of numbers but few repeaters. Without fail, every time I got the bases loaded, the shooter would 7-out within 3 rolls. Usually it was after just rolling one more number. Now, if I were superstitious or didn't understand math, I might have concluded that having all the numbers covered increases the likelihood of rolling a 7. That isn't actually true, but it sure seemed like it that day.

You're doing exactly the same thing with your baccarat pattern analysis. If you want to persist in hunting the wumpus, you should fix your data collection so you can see the effects of random variation on your process. Rather than adding your results together in a long running average, which is a really bad way to gather data, you should gather the data in a distribution. For each 1000 shoes, collect (a) the frequency of the rare event, and (b) the win probability after the rare event. Then plot those on a histogram. You'll see the distribution and be able to understand the variance and the mean, as well as how infrequent the rare event is to begin with.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
drjohnny
drjohnny
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 170
Joined: Sep 2, 2012
April 20th, 2014 at 10:06:58 AM permalink
The only possible way to beat baccarat in the "long run" is to use the Dragon 7 Count System in EZ-Baccarat that was created by a math PhD...

The variance of the bet is very high, and unless you’re heads-up with the dealer, the hand rate is very slow. If you’re wondering if you can grind out a profit from the bet, look at the outcome distribution below for a 500 unit bankroll with a +1000 unit goal, else playing for 500 shoes. While the risk of ruin is only 3.5%, you still have a 24% chance of losing after 500 shoes. Your average win is +250 units. So, if you have a $50k bankroll, can find a heads-up EZ-Baccarat table with a $100 max Dragon-7 bet, are committed to playing for hundreds of hours, and don’t draw any suspicion from casino personnel, then you can win from $50 to $100 per hour, depending on how fast you play.

ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
  • Threads: 117
  • Posts: 6218
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
April 20th, 2014 at 10:14:56 AM permalink
Quote: wz60

This is also the answer to ThatDonGuy:

Doing the test from a player's perspective:

You are going to a Casino and you are going to do Baccarat for 250k shoes, shoe by shoe. Ignoring all ties, you start from hand #9 to the end of the shoe. When you see the previous 8 hands are BPPPPPPP then you bet B. You win if it turns out to be B and you loss if P. You record all your bets and the results of wins and losses then you have the result for all 250k shoes.

Does this make sense?


Yes, and as I already said, I did this 40 times (just to clarify: 40 runs of 250,000 shoes each). The win percentages ranged from 50.3591% to 51.1366%. I also did this for a single run of 200 million shoes and got 50.700%.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
April 20th, 2014 at 10:25:29 AM permalink
Quote: wz60

Let me make this clear: I am willing to admit that I am wrong if anyone can prove that I am wrong.



I don't care whether you admit that you are wrong. However, I will gladly write code to generate data and analyze your claims. At the end, you can have the code and the results. My rate is $500 per hour. Cash up front, of course.
Dracula
Dracula
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 68
Joined: Apr 14, 2014
April 20th, 2014 at 10:38:25 AM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I don't care whether you admit that you are wrong. However, I will gladly write code to generate data and analyze your claims. At the end, you can have the code and the results. My rate is $500 per hour. Cash up front, of course.



That's a decent price. Do your results come with a happy ending? (Jk)
wz60
wz60
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 46
Joined: Apr 1, 2014
April 20th, 2014 at 10:51:56 AM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy

Yes, and as I already said, I did this 40 times (just to clarify: 40 runs of 250,000 shoes each). The win percentages ranged from 50.3591% to 51.1366%. I also did this for a single run of 200 million shoes and got 50.700%.



But you haven't give your result for the same 250k data I used, did I miss it?
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
April 20th, 2014 at 10:57:13 AM permalink
Quote: wz60

But you haven't give your result for the same 250k data I used, did I miss it?



You understand that 250k shoes is nowhere near enough data, right?

The problem is that you're only betting around 1 hand every 3 shoes. You can't expect to get consistent results, down to a few decimal places, from only 80k bets. That's why Don's numbers vary so much from shoe to shoe.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
April 20th, 2014 at 10:57:35 AM permalink
Quote: Dracula

That's a decent price. Do your results come with a happy ending? (Jk)



I am fairly sure that he will not be happy with the results :)
wz60
wz60
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 46
Joined: Apr 1, 2014
April 20th, 2014 at 11:00:09 AM permalink
Quote: wz60

But you haven't give your result for the same 250k data I used, did I miss it?



We need to confirm:
Num of total bets you did out of this 250k shoe
Num of wins
Num of losses
wz60
wz60
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 46
Joined: Apr 1, 2014
April 20th, 2014 at 11:07:41 AM permalink
Quote: wz60

We need to confirm:
Num of total bets you did out of this 250k shoe
Num of wins
Num of losses



If we don't conform results for same data, how do I trust your calculations you trust my calculations?
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
April 20th, 2014 at 11:17:35 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

Your own results have already demonstrated that you are wrong. You just don't see it. Here's what you wrote:

To put that in plainer English, you are hunting for an extremely rare event: a bank win followed by 7 player wins, and then your theory is that the next non-tie outcome will favor bank significantly more than the expected overall probability.
After 1000 shoes, the observed conditional probability of a bank win after the rare event was 55.55556%.
After 5000 shoes, the observed conditional probability of a bank win after the rare event was 53.05085%.
After 10000 shoes, the observed conditional probability of a bank win after the rare event was 52.00507%.

As a result, the 4000 shoes subsequent to the first 1000 demonstrated an average conditional probability of 52.42467%.
Further, while the first 5000 shoes showed 53.05085%, the second 5000 demonstrated a conditional probability of 50.95929%.



Thus showing the law of large numbers in effect.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
  • Threads: 117
  • Posts: 6218
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
April 20th, 2014 at 11:17:53 AM permalink
Quote: wz60

But you haven't give your result for the same 250k data I used, did I miss it?


No - but I already said that I don't see any purpose in it, since I don't see why my results with your data would not match yours.

If there is another reason why you want me to do it, then let me know. Otherwise, I trust your calculations from your data. (It's not your calculations that are being questioned; it's the hypothesis that, somehow, that one set of 250K shoes leads to a conclusion that applies in general to all 8-deck shoe baccarat games.)
wz60
wz60
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 46
Joined: Apr 1, 2014
April 20th, 2014 at 11:28:58 AM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy

No - but I already said that I don't see any purpose in it, since I don't see why my results with your data would not match yours.

If there is another reason why you want me to do it, then let me know. Otherwise, I trust your calculations from your data. (It's not your calculations that are being questioned; it's the hypothesis that, somehow, that one set of 250K shoes leads to a conclusion that applies in general to all 8-deck shoe baccarat games.)



The reason is that I am suspicious of your results that 250k data can swing from 50.3591 to 51.1366.
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
  • Threads: 117
  • Posts: 6218
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
April 20th, 2014 at 11:40:14 AM permalink
Quote: wz60

The reason is that I am suspicious of your results that 250k data can swing from 50.3591 to 51.1366.


How is my comparing the number of times B,P,P,P,P,P,P,P,P and B,P,P,P,P,P,P,P,B appear in those 10 files (which is exactly what you are asking me to do, right?) going to make your confidence in my numbers any better, since I obviously have to use an entirely different method for counting those shoes than I did for generating and counting the ones I used?
wz60
wz60
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 46
Joined: Apr 1, 2014
April 20th, 2014 at 11:47:20 AM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy

How is my comparing the number of times B,P,P,P,P,P,P,P,P and B,P,P,P,P,P,P,P,B appear in those 10 files (which is exactly what you are asking me to do, right?) going to make your confidence in my numbers any better, since I obviously have to use an entirely different method for counting those shoes than I did for generating and counting the ones I used?



That is exactly the point: the correct answer for same data should be only one. You and me are using different methods but we should get same numbers. Without knowing this I don't trust your results.
mustangsally
mustangsally
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 2463
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
April 20th, 2014 at 11:52:44 AM permalink
Quote: wz60

The reason is that I am suspicious of your results that 250k data can swing from 50.3591 to 51.1366.

When one has no concept of variance, anything and everything looks suspicious
250k is such a small sample size you must agree.

What is the average between 50.3591 to 51.1366?
about 50.74785
much closer to 50.6825 when we consider variance.

But we should really start at all your first post claims.
Quote: wz60

I want to share my findings and I want anyone who can do modeling to challenge me.

there should not be any challenge.
Scientific study is about finding out the truth and maybe having more than one arriving at the same conclusions.
Quote: wz60

can some bet selections provide higher edge and even >51.28 so a statistically win can be achieved?

The answer is yes and some selections do provide much better edges.

I say the answer is NO.
here you now must show all your data that made you arrive at this conclusion to say yes.
Only after that can another agree or disagree with your conclusions

Quote: wz60

Here are some examples:

1 You should not bet B after B --- continuation is always bad bet in Baccarat statistically, although each one has slightly different statistical expectation, e.g. bet 5B to continue is much better than 6B to continue (50.18 vs 49.28).

where is your proof

Quote: wz60

3 Lets back to bet B strategy, here is a winning one:
bet B every time after first P appears, this will give us a 51.41% edge, it is a winner since it is >51.28.
If you bet B after 2P, you will get a 51.24% edge
If you bet B after 3P, you will get 51.27% ---- very close to even
If you bet B after 8P, you have a big edge at 52.5%

I am sure that there are other B-betting selections that will also provide winning statistics.

where is the proof?

Quote: wz60

The bottom line is: the widely recognized 1.06% house edge for Baccarat is very misleading compared with BJ ----- BJ’s number is after applying some strategies while the Baccarat 1.06% number is flat overall number.
It can be reduced significantly by some good betting selections.

"good betting selections"
all talk and no show
where is your proof?

I would claim that variance made you to conclude these statements after you looked over a data sample, and a very small one at that.
But this has already been pointed out.

Show all your proof and forever change the game of Casino Baccarat
show no proof and continue to waste time and efforts.

Sally
I Heart Vi Hart
mustangsally
mustangsally
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 2463
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
April 20th, 2014 at 11:54:21 AM permalink
Quote: wz60

That is exactly the point: the correct answer for same data should be only one. You and me are using different methods but we should get same numbers. Without knowing this I don't trust your results.

yes the same expected value when considering variance.
Oh, what is variance?

I always get 50 heads and 50 tails when I flip 100 fair coins.
always
Sally
I Heart Vi Hart
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
April 20th, 2014 at 11:58:23 AM permalink
Quote: wz60

The reason is that I am suspicious of your results that 250k data can swing from 50.3591 to 51.1366.


What was the numerator in your fraction, and what was the denominator, that lead to your reported result? You may have looked through 250,000 shoes, but how many times did you actually observe the pattern you're seeking, and how many times did banker win on the next hand? A few hundred times, perhaps a few thousand?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
wz60
wz60
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 46
Joined: Apr 1, 2014
April 20th, 2014 at 12:04:30 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

What was the numerator in your fraction, and what was the denominator, that lead to your reported result? You may have looked through 250,000 shoes, but how many times did you actually observe the pattern you're seeking, and how many times did banker win on the next hand? A few hundred times, perhaps a few thousand?



That is exactly we need to know (and I have mine to share) to confirm that different calculations reach same results. Then we can talk about other things.
wz60
wz60
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 46
Joined: Apr 1, 2014
April 20th, 2014 at 12:29:56 PM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy

How is my comparing the number of times B,P,P,P,P,P,P,P,P and B,P,P,P,P,P,P,P,B appear in those 10 files (which is exactly what you are asking me to do, right?) going to make your confidence in my numbers any better, since I obviously have to use an entirely different method for counting those shoes than I did for generating and counting the ones I used?



Did you filter out all T's before calculation? Without filtering out all T's then the swings in the results are understandable.
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
  • Threads: 117
  • Posts: 6218
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
April 20th, 2014 at 1:39:26 PM permalink
Quote: wz60

Did you filter out all T's before calculation? Without filtering out all T's then the swings in the results are understandable.


I filter out the Ts in my numbers. Why wouldn't different sets of 250,000 shoes have different numbers even with the Ts removed? Remember, 250,000 shoes and 250,000 occurrences of BPPPPPPP are two entirely different things.

Question: are you including PPPPPPPB and PPPPPPPP at the start of a shoe (after Ts are removed, of course) in your counts?
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
April 20th, 2014 at 2:18:37 PM permalink
Quote: wz60

The reason is that I am suspicious of your results that 250k data can swing from 50.3591 to 51.1366.



That is what happens when you use such a ridiculously tiny sample size.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
April 20th, 2014 at 3:02:04 PM permalink
Quote: wz60

That is exactly we need to know (and I have mine to share) to confirm that different calculations reach same results. Then we can talk about other things.


But you're not actually sharing your data, just the ratio. So let's try this another way: run your simulations until you have observed 250,000 instances of your rare event, and then report the sample probability of winning events.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
  • Threads: 117
  • Posts: 6218
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
April 20th, 2014 at 4:11:54 PM permalink
Quote: wz60

Can you run a simulation for following 2 cases to see if my results on 250000-k shoes are in line with yours:
a) Bet 5P to stop (BPPPPPB vs BPPPPPP) I got B has only 50.62% edge
b) Bet 7P to stop (BPPPPPPPB vs BPPPPPPPP) I got B has 51.10% edge



In the B5P case, I counted 125851 BPPPPPB and 122787 BPPPPPP = 50.61616%

In the B7P case, I counted 30019 BPPPPPPB and 28724 BPPPPPPP (yes, after removing all ties) = 51.10226%.

In both cases, I match your numbers - using the 250,000 shoes you used.

Now, how does this make any of my numbers invalid?
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
  • Threads: 117
  • Posts: 6218
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
April 20th, 2014 at 4:33:40 PM permalink
I just ran 20 million shoes to count how many times B7P was followed by B, and how many times it was followed by P.
Here is what I got - the columns indicate how many shoes had been dealt, the combined number of times B7PB and B8P appeared (after ties were removed), and what percentage of those times it was B7PB instead of B8P:
ShoesB7Ps% B7PB
500001178150.3692386045
1000002359250.5595116989
1500003532850.3708106884
2000004726150.3607625738
2500005919050.4730528806
3000007083650.6098593935
3500008263750.6322833598
4000009444950.7024955267
45000010619950.685034699
50000011800150.6351641088
55000012978050.7004160888
60000014162850.7088993702
65000015342750.6990295059
70000016511750.6501450487
75000017687950.6804086409
80000018870050.7546369899
85000020035750.7519078445
90000021217650.7309969082
95000022401950.7198050165
100000023570550.7473324707
105000024740750.7511913568
110000025913750.7642675496
115000027094850.7632460841
120000028291350.7937068993
125000029443150.7735258855
130000030616950.7791448514
135000031811850.792787582
140000032994150.7893835565
145000034175750.8083228727
150000035360350.8030192052
155000036529350.8077077853
160000037715750.8149126226
165000038896450.8026449749
170000040086150.8098817296
175000041272350.7919355112
180000042467250.7886086203
185000043634550.7905441795
190000044813250.7843671061
195000045994950.7738901487
200000047184450.7523673078
205000048364450.7437288584
210000049549350.7417864632
215000050719550.7461627185
220000051899450.7518391349
225000053084050.7473061563
230000054248650.7587292575
235000055422650.7812697347
240000056591250.7748554546
245000057787850.7835563908
250000058958850.768841971
...
300000070790250.7307508666
350000082554850.7022002355
400000094386150.7266430121
4500000106119050.7562265004
5000000117983250.7578197574
5500000129788050.7683298918
6000000141569350.7721659993
6500000153359750.7513381938
7000000165109750.7452923723
7500000176887950.7338828716
8000000188688450.7212950028
8500000200432950.7206152283
9000000212196750.7254354097
9500000223964850.711495735
10000000235729750.6985755295
10500000247531050.6986599658
11000000259334250.7006403321
11500000271071150.691903342
12000000282857250.6928584459
12500000294664450.6971999332
13000000306419550.7036595256
13500000318174350.704880941
14000000329934850.7064426062
14500000341708950.7052933067
15000000353473250.6948758774
15500000365244150.6875812641
16000000377001650.6842411279
16500000388755850.6897131824
17000000400510350.6891832744
17500000412283650.6880215463
18000000424024350.6843829469
18500000435826950.6864078376
19000000447592550.6873551277
19500000459396850.6896434629
20000000471090050.6924366894
...
21000000494716050.6967431819
22000000518265650.6951840909
23000000541879850.694877351
24000000565453950.6889597896
25000000589030650.6824772771
26000000612547550.6852774683
27000000636144350.6788318311
28000000659768050.6801936438
29000000683363350.6854406726
30000000706995850.685506194
31000000730554250.6873001346
32000000754071350.6876471761
33000000777596850.6870655846
34000000801158350.6847398323
35000000824726750.6831657081
36000000848352350.68206923
37000000871899450.6792870829
38000000895452050.6777136016
39000000919038650.6725615224
40000000942632250.676605361
41000000966225750.673150176
42000000989725450.6758743385
430000001013344750.6767440536
440000001036912150.6747775438
450000001060455350.6736116081
460000001084039850.6722815897
470000001107634750.6749653112
480000001131155950.6776652095
490000001154689850.6776538599
500000001178156150.6800414648
550000001295896450.6825699956
600000001413685350.6840171571
650000001531529050.683062482
700000001649320850.6875072454
750000001767066650.6844337389
800000001885046150.6802724878
850000002002758450.6791583049
900000002120548850.6827383553
950000002238324350.6787287258
1000000002356120650.6803599103
1050000002474101350.6821406221
1100000002591812950.6830064778
1150000002709523050.6819871985
1200000002827392650.6804148812
1250000002945021650.6833905734
1300000003062778750.6837206358
1350000003180519550.6819027521
1400000003298308250.6791269536
1450000003416151850.6792906568
1500000003533766850.6827586925
1550000003651494050.6796533145
1600000003769341850.6793812119
1650000003887321350.6820081993
1700000004005171150.6809509337
1750000004122902650.679310251
1800000004240828850.6785206703
1850000004358518850.6804352892
1900000004476272250.6802848138
1950000004594343050.6809439347
2000000004711961950.6801105501
Dracula
Dracula
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 68
Joined: Apr 14, 2014
April 20th, 2014 at 5:16:08 PM permalink
This reminds me of a clip -

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA
Sonuvabish
Sonuvabish
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1342
Joined: Feb 5, 2014
April 20th, 2014 at 8:45:34 PM permalink
Quote: RS

I don't follow the logic. What's the point of squaring either of the RC or the tag values? A third of the deck remaining.....means 66% pen? Or they cut off 1/3 of a deck (Ie 17 cards)? How many decks?



I have no knowledge on this topic. Ask someone knowledgeable on the topic if you are interested in details about quadratics. I am changing my preferences to filter your posts, which is remarkably unfortunate.
wz60
wz60
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 46
Joined: Apr 1, 2014
April 20th, 2014 at 8:48:44 PM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy

I just ran 20 million shoes to count how many times B7P was followed by B, and how many times it was followed by P.
Here is what I got - the columns indicate how many shoes had been dealt, the combined number of times B7PB and B8P appeared (after ties were removed), and what percentage of those times it was B7PB instead of B8P:

ShoesB7Ps% B7PB
500001178150.3692386045
1000002359250.5595116989
1500003532850.3708106884
2000004726150.3607625738
2500005919050.4730528806
3000007083650.6098593935
3500008263750.6322833598
4000009444950.7024955267
45000010619950.685034699
50000011800150.6351641088
55000012978050.7004160888
60000014162850.7088993702
65000015342750.6990295059
70000016511750.6501450487
75000017687950.6804086409
80000018870050.7546369899
85000020035750.7519078445
90000021217650.7309969082
95000022401950.7198050165
100000023570550.7473324707
105000024740750.7511913568
110000025913750.7642675496
115000027094850.7632460841
120000028291350.7937068993
125000029443150.7735258855
130000030616950.7791448514
135000031811850.792787582
140000032994150.7893835565
145000034175750.8083228727
150000035360350.8030192052
155000036529350.8077077853
160000037715750.8149126226
165000038896450.8026449749
170000040086150.8098817296
175000041272350.7919355112
180000042467250.7886086203
185000043634550.7905441795
190000044813250.7843671061
195000045994950.7738901487
200000047184450.7523673078
205000048364450.7437288584
210000049549350.7417864632
215000050719550.7461627185
220000051899450.7518391349
225000053084050.7473061563
230000054248650.7587292575
235000055422650.7812697347
240000056591250.7748554546
245000057787850.7835563908
250000058958850.768841971
...
300000070790250.7307508666
350000082554850.7022002355
400000094386150.7266430121
4500000106119050.7562265004
5000000117983250.7578197574
5500000129788050.7683298918
6000000141569350.7721659993
6500000153359750.7513381938
7000000165109750.7452923723
7500000176887950.7338828716
8000000188688450.7212950028
8500000200432950.7206152283
9000000212196750.7254354097
9500000223964850.711495735
10000000235729750.6985755295
10500000247531050.6986599658
11000000259334250.7006403321
11500000271071150.691903342
12000000282857250.6928584459
12500000294664450.6971999332
13000000306419550.7036595256
13500000318174350.704880941
14000000329934850.7064426062
14500000341708950.7052933067
15000000353473250.6948758774
15500000365244150.6875812641
16000000377001650.6842411279
16500000388755850.6897131824
17000000400510350.6891832744
17500000412283650.6880215463
18000000424024350.6843829469
18500000435826950.6864078376
19000000447592550.6873551277
19500000459396850.6896434629
20000000471090050.6924366894
...
21000000494716050.6967431819
22000000518265650.6951840909
23000000541879850.694877351
24000000565453950.6889597896
25000000589030650.6824772771
26000000612547550.6852774683
27000000636144350.6788318311
28000000659768050.6801936438
29000000683363350.6854406726
30000000706995850.685506194
31000000730554250.6873001346
32000000754071350.6876471761
33000000777596850.6870655846
34000000801158350.6847398323
35000000824726750.6831657081
36000000848352350.68206923
37000000871899450.6792870829
38000000895452050.6777136016
39000000919038650.6725615224
40000000942632250.676605361
41000000966225750.673150176
42000000989725450.6758743385
430000001013344750.6767440536
440000001036912150.6747775438
450000001060455350.6736116081
460000001084039850.6722815897
470000001107634750.6749653112
480000001131155950.6776652095
490000001154689850.6776538599
500000001178156150.6800414648
550000001295896450.6825699956
600000001413685350.6840171571
650000001531529050.683062482
700000001649320850.6875072454
750000001767066650.6844337389
800000001885046150.6802724878
850000002002758450.6791583049
900000002120548850.6827383553
950000002238324350.6787287258
1000000002356120650.6803599103
1050000002474101350.6821406221
1100000002591812950.6830064778
1150000002709523050.6819871985
1200000002827392650.6804148812
1250000002945021650.6833905734
1300000003062778750.6837206358
1350000003180519550.6819027521
1400000003298308250.6791269536
1450000003416151850.6792906568
1500000003533766850.6827586925
1550000003651494050.6796533145
1600000003769341850.6793812119
1650000003887321350.6820081993
1700000004005171150.6809509337
1750000004122902650.679310251
1800000004240828850.6785206703
1850000004358518850.6804352892
1900000004476272250.6802848138
1950000004594343050.6809439347
2000000004711961950.6801105501



Thx, I was wrong to think that 250 k data is large enough to produce insignificant swings from statistic expectation.
kubikulann
kubikulann
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 905
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
April 21st, 2014 at 6:46:08 PM permalink
Quote: wz60

Let me make this clear: I am willing to admit that I am wrong if anyone can prove that I am wrong.

The problem is, what do you call a proof ? When you get one, you disregard it.
Quote: wz60

Well then lets wait others to check this data. You cannot convince me without presenting your results for same data I used.

Actually, you are not asking for proof, but "to be convinced". That's different; I cannot convince someone who does not understand mathematical proof. What you ask is not proof, it is sample results, which never proved anything. And then when you get some new sample analysis, you claim the samples are not good and yours is the only one that can be used. Highly unscientific. Compels me to ask, What exactly was your job at the engineering company?... Marketing and advertisement, probably. They like data-mining and are accustomed to believe in their own cowdung.

On another point: at one moment you compare sequences of BPP and BPB and claim one is more frequent. Did you (correctly) cut up your sample into sequences of three (INCLUDING ties), then check for the BP- pattern and check the frequency of third-place B and P? Or did you pick up every such sequence appearing in the list? In the latter case, it is logical that the frequency differs. Some patterns overlapped (e.g. BPBPP) but that can't happen the other way round.
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
Sonuvabish
Sonuvabish
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1342
Joined: Feb 5, 2014
April 22nd, 2014 at 8:31:22 AM permalink
Quote: wz60

This is also the answer to ThatDonGuy:

Doing the test from a player's perspective:

You are going to a Casino and you are going to do Baccarat for 250k shoes, shoe by shoe. Ignoring all ties, you start from hand #9 to the end of the shoe. When you see the previous 8 hands are BPPPPPPP then you bet B. You win if it turns out to be B and you loss if P. You record all your bets and the results of wins and losses then you have the result for all 250k shoes.

Does this make sense?



This is preposterous. Why is this thread still alive? Yes, bet the opposite of what won last hand because it is due. No one ever thought of that before.
geoff
geoff
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 368
Joined: Feb 19, 2014
April 22nd, 2014 at 9:10:10 AM permalink
Quote: Sonuvabish

This is preposterous. Why is this thread still alive? Yes, bet the opposite of what won last hand because it is due. No one ever thought of that before.



BRB withdrawing my life savings and driving to the nearest store.
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
  • Threads: 117
  • Posts: 6218
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
April 22nd, 2014 at 11:53:31 AM permalink
Quote: Sonuvabish

This is preposterous. Why is this thread still alive?


Because people like us are responding to it. The OP admitted his mistake in his most recent post (see his response at the bottom of that list of numbers). Sometimes, it just takes sheer numbers to get the point across.
  • Jump to: