18 yo's in a row (split-off)
Take the old diagramming out of the continued chances of always tossing heads in a coin toss. In throwing yos instead of needing double the space [if same spacing kept] on the next row you need 36 times the space. If you actually did it, it would visually show the competing possibilities. The latter rows start to become enormous.
Don't be silly RS. Those two things mean exactly the same unless the mathletes over analyse it :)Quote: RSPrediction: Sometime down the road Alan is going to say something to the effect of the guy didn't throw 18 yo's in a row (consecutively, back-to-back), but something else....."every time it was his turn to shoot the dice, over the course of his many rolls, he threw at least one yo, and he had 18 such hands in a row where at least one yo was rolled." And then the 'mathletes' will be ridiculed by Alan & his lackeys because it was a simple "word problem" not a "math problem" that mathletes can't seem to grasp....or something along those lines.
Quote: beachbumbabsPM search feature would be wonderful. So would being able to sort by sender.
The biggest problem by far is the lack of basic forum functions. Being able to bold text, post images and videos and so forth without manually coding them.
To someone just trying the place out, these are likely to be huge turn offs.
Quote: WizardofnothingI have looked at Alan's forum and it's clear he doesn't grasp a lot when it comes to gambling ....
All you can do is shake your head in disbelief. I don't know how it can be called a "Best Buys" with what I read there.
Quote: JimRockfordIf I threw a pair of dice (die A and die B) 18 times and reported the results on each die for each roll, wouldn't my precise results be just as improbable as 18 elevens? Couldn't it be said that my reported results are very doubtful because it is far more likely that I made a mistake?
No , because 18 yo's have different odds then say a string of 18 rolls that go 2, 4, 4, 7, 7, 5, 9, 9, 3, 11, 7, 5, 12, 5, 7, 7, 8, 5.
Keep in mind that my roll results will be of each die not just the sum:Quote: IbeatyouracesNo , because 18 yo's have different odds then say a string of 18 rolls that go 2, 4, 4, 7, 7, 5, 9, 9, 3, 11, 7, 5, 12, 5, 7, 7, 8, 5.
Die A 6, Die B 2
Die A 4, Die B 4
etc.
Quote: JimRockfordIf I threw a pair of dice (die A and die B) 18 times and reported the results on each die for each roll, wouldn't my precise results be just as improbable as 18 elevens?
yes. If you reported the pair of values without reference to which die was which e.g. report a5b6 and a6b5 in the same way as say '56'.
Not reasonably so.Quote:Couldn't it be said that my reported results are very doubtful because it is far more likely that I made a mistake?
if you take certain things as patterns, such as in roulette you might have odd,even,odd,even or you might have 4 evens or 4 odds or 4 reds or 4 blacks, then you can see that 'remarkable patterns' of some kind are quite frequent. That's what makes the game so appealing to pattern followers. However, 18Yos in a row is far far far more than just a 'remarkable pattern'
So I think that leaves us with the odds of any one of a particular state of affairs, all of which are huge long shots, corresponding to some pre conceived narrative. A coincidence, in other words.
The odds of you sitting next to people A,B,C,D... the next 18 times you go to a nice restaurant might be very long even if they turn out to be unremarkable people.
But if you claim that you went out to eat and, on 18 consecutive occasions (lets say at random steakhouses in LV), were seated next to a starting player for a pro sports team, I'd have a hard time believing you.
Might not be all that less likely than any particular string of unknown people. But this suggests a coincidence that is hard to believe. i.e. that, out of the bagazillion combos, you happened upon such a remarkable and memorable one.
Quote: JimRockfordIf I threw a pair of dice (die A and die B) 18 times and reported the results on each die for each roll, wouldn't my precise results be just as improbable as 18 elevens? Couldn't it be said that my reported results are very doubtful because it is far more likely that I made a mistake?
Yes, your precise results would be as improbable as 18 elevens. The point is there are so few ways to achieve a streak "symmetrical" or memorable enough (in our, human eyes) compared to the total number of possible streaks/outcomes in 18 throws of pair of dice, that the odds of seeing one of those memorable streaks, such as 18 elevens in a row are astronomically small.
But not even that is the point. The real point is that the odds of 1 to gazillion event happening COMBINED with the exceptionally small odds of having no public note about the event of some sort, no one betting on the exceptional streak, no one stopping the game and examining the dice for weights and no one, but one person on the entire planet (as far as we know) able to attest for the event actually taking place is what makes it really hard to comprehend.
Quote: RS
Setting 18 points and hitting them all before a 7 out, only? Or would 7/11 on come out roll count toward that 18? What about 2/3/12 on come out rollTo clarify, 7/11 coming out would not count as a "point made", only 18 points established and made, before a seven out. Intervening 7/11/2/3/12's could have occurred... What are those odds? I ask as a point of comparison because this unlikely event actually occurred under live casino conditions, and has been documented.Quote: AyecarumbaYes, 7/11 and 2/3/12 would count coming out. The question is about the odds of setting 18 points and making all of them before a seven out.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
Many times, in fact, but with two caveats:Quote: darkozSo, with that in mind, the chances of finding such a glitch that escaped all that should be astronomical. And yet, we know that has happened.
a) Virtually all such glitches will be reported in the news because they lead to reported jackpots of at least six figures (if not seven or eight). There are about a million EGMs of varying sorts in the US and with play times in the few-second range, you're looking at over a trillion EGM transactions annually.
b) The chances of a machine glitch actually leading to large sums of money for a player is almost zero. I've worked on several slot game malfunction lawsuits where the game reported a huge jackpot but the player didn't ultimately get paid. In most cases, the backstop disclaimer is "Malfunction voids all pays and plays."
There have been many malfunction cases over the years, including the recently-posted keno machine issue that just happened in Nebraska:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supreme-court/1419197.html
http://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/supreme-court/2015/140802.html
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/court-of-appeals/2010/f580-f6d1-10d3e.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/beaverton/index.ssf/2015/11/beaverton_woman_says_shell_hir.html
Quote: MathExtremistMany times, in fact, but with two caveats:
a) Virtually all such glitches will be reported in the news because they lead to reported jackpots of at least six figures (if not seven or eight). There are about a million EGMs of varying sorts in the US and with play times in the few-second range, you're looking at over a trillion EGM transactions annually.
b) The chances of a machine glitch actually leading to large sums of money for a player is almost zero. I've worked on several slot game malfunction lawsuits where the game reported a huge jackpot but the player didn't ultimately get paid. In most cases, the backstop disclaimer is "Malfunction voids all pays and plays."
There have been many malfunction cases over the years, including the recently-posted keno machine issue that just happened in Nebraska:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supreme-court/1419197.html
http://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/supreme-court/2015/140802.html
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/court-of-appeals/2010/f580-f6d1-10d3e.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/beaverton/index.ssf/2015/11/beaverton_woman_says_shell_hir.html
Mathextremist,
I'm not talking about malfunctions with voided pays but exploitable glitches where Elvis left the building with the money before it was caught. If, as you say, the chances of finding a machine glitch that leads "to large sums of money for a player is almost zero", then something that has almost zero chance of happening, has happened on a number of occasions.
Here is more in line with what I was referring to, as an example: http://nypost.com/2013/07/29/what-a-load-of-crap-gambler-wins-big-by-exploiting-a-software-glitch-at-aqueduct-resorts-world/
Quote: darkozMathextremist,
I'm not talking about malfunctions with voided pays but exploitable glitches where Elvis left the building with the money before it was caught. If, as you say, the chances of finding a machine glitch that leads "to large sums of money for a player is almost zero", then something that has almost zero chance of happening, has happened on a number of occasions.
Here is more in line with what I was referring to, as an example: http://nypost.com/2013/07/29/what-a-load-of-crap-gambler-wins-big-by-exploiting-a-software-glitch-at-aqueduct-resorts-world/
True enough. And of course there was the notorious case of the video poker double-up bug exploited by Nestor and Kane discussed at length here and elsewhere. However, as described in the craps article you linked, the problem (for the exploiter) is that the buggy game is usually caught fairly quickly and disabled. Silicon Gaming had a keno machine in Lake Tahoe in the 1990s with an RNG problem that sounds similar to the recent Nebraska keno machine -- there were discernable patterns in the numbers so players figured it out and won money. But in doing so, the game dumped lots of money and was removed by the operator.
To be fair, none of the cases I've worked on (yet) have had to do with persistent glitching and repeatable exploitation. They've all been network error/jackpot malfunctions where the machine locked up for millions of dollars. It's entirely possible that there are glitchy machines out there that are being exploited under the radar for smaller amounts of money without drawing sufficient attention to them. The only time these things make widespread news is when someone actually notices -- someone besides the exploiter, that is.
I played craps at Binions Thursday night. I personally witnessed TWO yo's in-a-row.
Maybe one of these days I'll see 18 yo's in-a-row??? But then again, maybe I won't.
Quote: HowManyI returned home from my annual pre-Super Bowl trip to Vegas yesterday.
I played craps at Binions Thursday night. I personally witnessed TWO yo's in-a-row.
Maybe one of these days I'll see 18 yo's in-a-row??? But then again, maybe I won't.
Noob I saw 3 in a row
Of course nobody was on it because we all were dummies
Quote: WizardI once saw one yo in a row.
I had a yo-yo when I was a kid.
Quote: djatcNoob I saw 3 in a row
Of course nobody was on it because we all were dummies
Do not click here, especially if your name is Wizard. (I don't want to know how many push ups I owe for that one.)
Quote: AlanMendelsonNo wager is needed.
I'm leaving this forum.
Wizard, please remove my account.
I don't need the insults.
Adios.
For someone who is "leaving" the forum, you sure like to show up every day.
to read emails that must happenQuote: IbeatyouracesFor someone who is "leaving" the forum, you sure like to show up every day.
ands
those over 50 crowd, you know who you are, that take medication for any reason
(like Elvis or Prince)
humor them
on the things they say,
not so much on the things they do (due)
they (and there are lots of them)
are here for only a short time more...
and then the books will be opened and the truth shown
(like Total Recall)
BUSTED!
But, I have noticed a tendency for people to get upset/threatening when you don't believe them.
In conversation, it appears like they are taking it as some kind of insult. You know, like you've done something wrong.
Highlights were the irony of justifying the “memorable”-ness of 18 yos (yo’s?) vs 18 of a particular other set of rolls (like 4/3, 5/1, 6/3, . . .). Mathematically equal in likelihood to occur, in fact the string of 18 particular other rolls is less likely to occur if it contains doubles (like a hard 4, etc). This distinction of 18 yos being special vs a different string of 18 particular roles is a really interesting philosophical (or maybe psychological) issue to ponder.
In other words, if I reported coming from a casino and seeing a shooter make the following 18 rolls:
1/2
3/4
1/6
5/5
2/4
6/6
5/6
3/5
1/3
2/3
4/6
2/5
3/6
1/5
2/6
1/1
2/2
3/4
Then you really could have a repeat of this thread as a technical matter. The Wizard could run the math to show how astronomically unlikely it was for me to witness that particular pattern. Mr. V could say how likely it is that I suffered from some medical condition that made my memory slip rather than actually witness it. Ace of Spades could weigh in to have my back.
Of course, none of that would actually happen because humans don’t think the 18 rolls above is “speical” or “memorable” in some psychological or philosophical sense. But a gazillion to 1 says the string above has never appeared in any 18 rolls of craps ever.
Second highlight was the blatant misunderstanding of the anthropic principle. But that’s a pretty common error made by folk.
Anyway, sorry to bring an old thread back from the dead for my idle musings.
He held up seven fingers, saying, "I don't want to say the word at the table".
