tuttigym
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
• Posts: 1140
October 6th, 2021 at 1:55:29 PM permalink
Quote: Dieter

Does a die have 6 sides? Does each side have an equal chance of landing up? That's 1 in 6. Two dice is 1 in 62 to get a given combination; some of those combinations are equivalent for game purposes.

We are now back to 4th grade arithmetic. 36 ways to roll the dice exactly. 30 ways to win and only 6 ways lose. The rest has been filled in by prior posts. No need to rehash as it is quite tedious.

Quote: Dieter

Wheels... does the ball or flapper have an even chance of landing each way?

Yes, no argument here.

Quote: Dieter

Using a different source of randomness to simulate these games should have no impact. Are you suggesting that the wheels aren't fair? Perhaps the dice aren't fair? Perhaps the simulation isn't using an adequate source of randomness?

Ah , but it does. You see simulators cannot change the wager with each toss of the dice or each hand that is played. It cannot add or subtract or even withdraw from play during a session. So, yes, the wheels and the dice are fair, but the simulator cannot react to what is actually happening to table conditions of being "hot," "cold," or "choppy."

Quote: Dieter

Computerized shufflers can be exactly simulated. A computer shuffle takes a computer algorithm random source and methodically restacks the input deck to the output deck, with a convolution based on the computer algorithm. That can all be readily simulated.

Hand shuffles can probably be simulated too. It's just a different series of output convolutions.

• link to original post

Card games do not float my boat, but I am sure that you are probably correct on the above.

tuttigym
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
• Posts: 4715
October 6th, 2021 at 2:03:56 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

I In short, simulations are NOT real.

that is really, really bad news for the astronauts who have to use simulators to learn what moving around in space is like

when they really get up there it's going to be totally different for them

when the trainees read your post they may very well quit the astronaut training program

.
"𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳"______Edgar Allan Poe
tuttigym
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
• Posts: 1140
October 6th, 2021 at 2:10:58 PM permalink
Quote: lilredrooster

if you believe that to be true - and I'm not at all agreeing that it is - anyway - why would you believe a human being could predict what a computer cannot simulate?

𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 "𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥"?

Gambling is a guessing game, so humans will try to "predict," but they cannot; they react. Simulators do what they are asked to do and they just repeat the exercise as programed until the exercise reaches conclusion or is terminated. If a variable is introduced in mid-exercise, the calculations change and so do the answers which will skew the ultimate results.

tuttigym
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
• Posts: 6406
October 6th, 2021 at 2:12:37 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

Ah , but it does. You see simulators cannot change the wager with each toss of the dice or each hand that is played. It cannot add or subtract or even withdraw from play during a session.
tuttigym

• link to original post

Absolutely a simulator can vary it's bets, increase or decrease wager by whatever amount upon whatever trigger you program. Or it can set wager to zero on certain triggers.

What it cannot simulate is YOUR playing style unless YOU can codify a set of RULES that you play. We cannot simulate a tuttigym because a tuttigym cannot define his way of interpretating the table. Tutygym cannot define what he will see as a hot table on his first ten minutes of session 1 and how that would not be a hot table under exactly the same conditions on a day when Tuttigym has seen a black cat.
If I'm wrong and you can define exactly what you would do after observing the rolls to date at any time, then we can put tenders out to simulate you. While we are at it we could get simulated you, once proven and take it to make some real wagers from your bankroll to make you poorer.
Beware. The earth is NOT flat. Hit and run is not a winning strategy: Pressing into trends IS not a winning strategy: Progressives are not a winning strategy: Don't Buy It! .Don't even take it for free.
Dieter
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
• Posts: 3314
October 6th, 2021 at 2:12:38 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

Ah , but it does. You see simulators cannot change the wager with each toss of the dice or each hand that is played. It cannot add or subtract or even withdraw from play during a session. So, yes, the wheels and the dice are fair, but the simulator cannot react to what is actually happening to table conditions of being "hot," "cold," or "choppy."

• link to original post

They absolutely can.

You can enter a starting bankroll, place your (fake) bets, and play it out one roll at a time. Watch your mock-bank grow and shrink.
With some savvy, you can probably automate most playing schemes, when to press, when to turn off and turn back on, when to put so much on a hardway, and maybe even periodically decrease your mock-bank with some chips "for the crew".

Resolving addition and subtraction problems based on conditional logic is one of those mechanical tasks that computers can do almost instantly, and have been doing very reliably for over 60 years.
The randomness that drives the conditional tests is trickier, but that's been reasonably addressed since at least 1992.
May the cards fall in your favor.
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
• Posts: 4715
Thanks for this post from:
October 6th, 2021 at 2:22:40 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

. My play is NOT a "system." My play varies from hand to hand (craps). My play is dependent upon how the table and the various players do during any given session.

aha__________you don't have a system_________but you have a "method"

and you are claiming it's a winning "method"

and that simulations showing that a house game with a negative expectancy cannot be beat in the long run are false

lucky, lucky you

you can beat the house with your "method"

you must be filthy rich by now________________betting huge

too, too bad for everybody here that your winning "method" cannot be documented or proven so we can all learn it too and get rich from it

no problem at all_________everybody here will just have to take your word for it

.
"𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳"______Edgar Allan Poe
tuttigym
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
• Posts: 1140
October 6th, 2021 at 2:35:00 PM permalink
Quote: Once Dear

I understood Dieter's time estimate was an experiment run as a real person at a real game. A computer simulator would do that in a few minutes with the same conclusion. The computer could also repeat the experiment many times to establish the conclusion more reliably and forcefully. Unlike the notional playing human.

And you know that how? Could you provide a footnote for authentication?

Quote: OnceDear

Experiments don't solve hypothetical equations. They derive solutions within defines margins of error at statistical confidence levels.
E.g. Experiment might determine that 7 is rolled 1 time in 6.1 rolls with a margin of error of 0.3 with 95% confidence.
A longer experimental run might determine that 7 is rolled 1 time in 6.001 rolls with a margin of error of 0.002 with 99.99% confidence.

By golly, that is 4th grade arithmetic which I seem to remember was involved in a previous post of mine. Thank you for the affirmation. Do you suppose that we might agree on some of the other 4th grade arithmetic I suggested using "actual calculated precise solutions with no ambiguity"?

tuttigym
tuttigym
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
• Posts: 1140
October 6th, 2021 at 2:56:48 PM permalink
Quote: MichaelBluejay

It's not the percentage of winning sessions, it's the total return on *all* sessions. The Martingale can win 80% of 1-hour sessions, but is still an overall loser, because the losing 20% of sessions lose more than the the wins in the winning sessions

That is a very correct statement, but suppose you change the math below showing the winning sessions averaging \$350 and the losing sessions at \$500. That big red number would change to a big green number. I guess it is always great to create your own numbers to make your point.

tuttigym
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
• Posts: 4715
Thanks for this post from:
October 6th, 2021 at 2:59:02 PM permalink
Quote: lilredrooster

if you have a winning system or method why would you even care about convincing the mathletes on this site of that

Quote: tuttigym

I don't. Some of their posts bully and seek to domineer, It is who they are.

really?__________then why would you continue conversing with them?

you've got to admit it's pretty strange

carrying on a long conversation with people whose opinions you don't care a whit about and who seek to bully and domineer

most people wouldn't be bothered

.
"𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳"______Edgar Allan Poe
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
• Posts: 6406
October 6th, 2021 at 2:59:17 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

And you know that how? Could you provide a footnote for authentication?

You want me to provide a footnote authenticating that computers are faster than humans? OK.
Footnote: I hereby authenticate that computers are faster than humans
Quote:

By golly, that is 4th grade arithmetic which I seem to remember was involved in a previous post of mine. Thank you for the affirmation. Do you suppose that we might agree on some of the other 4th grade arithmetic I suggested using "actual calculated precise solutions with no ambiguity"?

tuttigym

• link to original post

I've given up on trying to reason with you. I can't even determine what you are asserting apart from 'Simulations aren't like reality'. I go back to my suggestion. Mortgage everything. Take your non-system playing 'method' to the casino and get incredibly rich. Nothing can go wrong. Just Do It.
Goodbye.
Beware. The earth is NOT flat. Hit and run is not a winning strategy: Pressing into trends IS not a winning strategy: Progressives are not a winning strategy: Don't Buy It! .Don't even take it for free.