Poll

 it works. ive tried 17 votes (60.71%) it doesnt work. ive tried 3 votes (10.71%) i dont know 8 votes (28.57%)

28 members have voted

thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
• Posts: 5936
July 16th, 2012 at 12:53:04 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

This just is not true. Taking one stream of results for
millions of spins and into infinity, one side will get
statistically, but never reach equality. In fact, the closer
they become % wise, the farther apart they become
in reality.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Completely incorrect.

I've already given you the thought experiment that shows why this is wrong.

The hard core mathematicians can give you the explanation in Mathematical terms.

Quote:

But you can't just look at one stream of outcomes. You
have to look at multiple streams, ultimately millions
of streams, to see where the equality is. For every
stream where red is far ahead of black, theres a stream
where black is ahead of red. If could look at enough
streams, there would be total equality.

And this is just nonsense dressed up and taken out for dinner.
"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
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
• Posts: 25333
July 16th, 2012 at 1:05:49 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

I've already given you the thought experiment that shows why this is wrong.

The thought experiment?

This is not wrong, the two sides from a single strem
do not eventually come together given an 'infinite
amount of time'.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
• Posts: 5936
July 16th, 2012 at 1:47:06 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

The thought experiment?

If after a time interval x, heads has "Y" more hits than tails, why cannot tails have "Y" more hits than heads over a time interval y, where y is sequentially after x? What law or mathematical phenomena means that a random coin flip now stops acting random?

Example, after 2 billion flips, heads is ahead by 3,000. Why can tails not now get 3,001 more results than heads at some point over the next 2 billion flips?

In short, if one side can "get ahead" the other can "get ahead" later.

Quote:

This is not wrong, the two sides from a single strem
do not eventually come together given an 'infinite
amount of time'.

From where do you get that result? Papers? Results? Mathematical formula showing that after a time X, the side that is ahead IS ALWAYS ahead and GURANTEED to be ahead?

Single stream or multiple streams... doesn't matter. These are random numbers and results, so previous results do not matter to the next result. The source of the numbers does not matter if they are truly random sources.

if it does matter, than that`s a different definition of `random`.
"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
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
• Posts: 25333
July 16th, 2012 at 1:56:18 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

In short, if one side can "get ahead" the other can "get ahead" later.

Using a single stream, there is a point of no return. Its a fact
100% equality is an illusion. The closer the two sides get
statistically, expressed as a percentage, the farther they
get away from each other actually. Something to do with
the law of large numbers.

The infinite amount of time thing comes from something Sally
posted yesterday.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
24Bingo
Joined: Jul 4, 2012
• Posts: 1348
July 16th, 2012 at 2:27:49 PM permalink
What even is a "stream"? Do you mean a string?

It's true that as the standard deviation narrows in terms of percentage of total bet, it grows in absolute terms; however, it's for just this reason that there is no "point of no return," since as the time window grows, the probability of at some point reaching a given distance from the mean approaches 1. Since the past is irrelevant to the future, given that you're now a certain distance out, the chance of at some point in the indefinite future finding yourself back where you started, however briefly, approaches 1. And again, this point has an equal chance of being up or down for the casino, provided that there remain bettors.

It is true that once you're ahead (or behind), that's the new mean, so the chance of being ahead after any finite amount of time will always be better than even, but even that will approach even as the time window grows to infinity (assuming an unlimited bankroll and prize pool), again, just because the standard deviation is always increasing in absolute terms.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
• Posts: 25333
July 16th, 2012 at 2:33:52 PM permalink
Quote: 24Bingo

What even is a "stream"? Do you mean a string?

Its the outcomes from one source, like one roulette
wheel or one RNG.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
buzzpaff
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
• Posts: 5328
July 16th, 2012 at 2:35:56 PM permalink
Want to test this theory. Does Bicycle sell an infinite deck of cards ?
mustangsally
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
• Posts: 2463
July 16th, 2012 at 3:31:11 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Using a single stream, there is a point of no return. Its a fact
100% equality is an illusion. The closer the two sides get
statistically, expressed as a percentage, the farther they
get away from each other actually. Something to do with
the law of large numbers.

The infinite amount of time thing comes from something Sally
posted yesterday.

"The infinite amount of time thing" is the average time between returns to zero in a symmetric walk.

Just like if you divided the number 2 by 2. How many times, on average, can you keep dividing?divide 1 by 2, and that answer by 2...
An infinite number. That is the average.

Again, you keep stating incomplete facts.
Your statement is only correct when the probability of success (P) is NOT EQUAL to the probability of failure (Q).

This stuff is stats and prob class 100
subject: Random Walks

My post here has a link to a math paper on the subject.
http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/10597-does-counting-work/7/#post164216

But, one can believe in anything they want, even when they are not correct.
I Heart Vi Hart
4andaKicker
Joined: Jun 20, 2012
• Posts: 82
July 16th, 2012 at 3:49:09 PM permalink
To speak on the subject: yes, counting has been successful in the past BUT, and this is a big BUT, you need to have the best rules a large bankroll and alot of other social skills to be able to do this without, ummm, consequences.

Card counting isn't dead, but it is dying as we speak. Casinos won't tolerate consistent winners in a HE game, therefore, they will alter conditions until they get the return they want. They will install CSMs. Try card counting with those. You won't play there you say? Ok, then they will give you 6:5 bj, hit soft 17, no surrender, ante blackjack, etc., etc. Casinos prevent all fleas from counting by making all red chippers play against CSMs. They offer shoe games for \$25 and up, and that gives them a much smaller group to watch for counting. You can play and count to your heart's content so long as you don't win too often. So counters now have to have an immense bankroll, a good disguise for counting, the ability to travel all over to limit their exposure to scrutiny, and reasonable luck to make a living at blackjack.

The vast majority of people in America don't have anywhere near the income or savings to allow them to play "for a living". I think the fact is: if you can afford to count cards for a living, you are wealthy enough not to worry about having a real job in the first place. This is becoming just a distraction for spoiled rich kids who think the events portrayed in "21" were anything close to reality. Most of the old pros are gone, they write books and sell advice. They do this because it is no longer worth the effort for them to try to make money counting. It's kind of parallel to the "video poker pro" stories. Sure, you could make money doing that....in 2003!! Now the casinos have changed things so it isn't realistic for average people to have a prayer to do this "professionally".
AcesAndEights
Joined: Jan 5, 2012
• Posts: 4299
July 16th, 2012 at 4:46:42 PM permalink
Quote: 4andaKicker

To speak on the subject: yes, counting has been successful in the past BUT, and this is a big BUT, you need to have the best rules a large bankroll and alot of other social skills to be able to do this without, ummm, consequences.

Card counting isn't dead, but it is dying as we speak. Casinos won't tolerate consistent winners in a HE game, therefore, they will alter conditions until they get the return they want. They will install CSMs. Try card counting with those. You won't play there you say? Ok, then they will give you 6:5 bj, hit soft 17, no surrender, ante blackjack, etc., etc. Casinos prevent all fleas from counting by making all red chippers play against CSMs. They offer shoe games for \$25 and up, and that gives them a much smaller group to watch for counting. You can play and count to your heart's content so long as you don't win too often. So counters now have to have an immense bankroll, a good disguise for counting, the ability to travel all over to limit their exposure to scrutiny, and reasonable luck to make a living at blackjack.

The vast majority of people in America don't have anywhere near the income or savings to allow them to play "for a living". I think the fact is: if you can afford to count cards for a living, you are wealthy enough not to worry about having a real job in the first place. This is becoming just a distraction for spoiled rich kids who think the events portrayed in "21" were anything close to reality. Most of the old pros are gone, they write books and sell advice. They do this because it is no longer worth the effort for them to try to make money counting. It's kind of parallel to the "video poker pro" stories. Sure, you could make money doing that....in 2003!! Now the casinos have changed things so it isn't realistic for average people to have a prayer to do this "professionally".

I agree with this. I don't think card-counting will ever truly "die," but it gets harder and harder every year, and everything else you said (time, travel, bankroll requirements) rings true. As a green* "hobbyist" card counter, I look at it as a hobby that will provide me with auxiliary income over the span of my life, probably a small fraction of my primary income from working.

*green as in "new," not as in level of play. Although I'm generally a green chip player I guess.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer