100x odds: pass only vs pass and come
August 10th, 2018 at 3:43:34 PM
permalink
Local casino offers 100x odds and has $10 tables on weeknights.
I know the lowest house edge would be pass with 10x odds, but it is more action (fun) to play 5x odds on each of pass line and one come.
Even better option is 10x odds on don't pass.
Thoughts?
I know the lowest house edge would be pass with 10x odds, but it is more action (fun) to play 5x odds on each of pass line and one come.
Even better option is 10x odds on don't pass.
Thoughts?
August 10th, 2018 at 4:08:05 PM
permalink
The odds don't make any difference to your expected loss rate but makes the winning or losing swings more extreme. Using two basic bets (Pass/Come) increase your expected loss but slightly reduce your swings. Since you say it's more fun, the decision is whether it is worth the extra expected loss of 14c.
August 10th, 2018 at 6:44:19 PM
permalink
You will have a great deal more fun making many Come bets and taking only moderate Odds. In contrast, there are solid reasons to never lay any Odds at all on the Dark Side. I recommend staying on the Bright Side.
If you were to play 100 games of Pass and Come without any Odds at all, you would have less than a three percent chance of losing more than ten bet units. Playing "naked" is almost like betting on a coin toss.
Over a third of the already tiny House Advantage is disposed of by taking only Single Odds.
An advantage of Single Odds is that the expected revenue profile of money won from each of the possible winning numbers most closely matches the actual probability of those numbers. At higher Odds multiples, the expected revenue profile unduly emphasizes revenue from Box numbers and diminishes revenue from the Natural Winners, Seven and Eleven. In my personal play, I never take more than double Odds on my many Come bets.
A money management rule of thumb for such play is to begin with a flat bet that is about two percent of your table stake.
After you are comfortable making and keeping track of many Come bets with their Odds, you will want to learn to make Place bets with your profits.
If you were to play 100 games of Pass and Come without any Odds at all, you would have less than a three percent chance of losing more than ten bet units. Playing "naked" is almost like betting on a coin toss.
Over a third of the already tiny House Advantage is disposed of by taking only Single Odds.
An advantage of Single Odds is that the expected revenue profile of money won from each of the possible winning numbers most closely matches the actual probability of those numbers. At higher Odds multiples, the expected revenue profile unduly emphasizes revenue from Box numbers and diminishes revenue from the Natural Winners, Seven and Eleven. In my personal play, I never take more than double Odds on my many Come bets.
A money management rule of thumb for such play is to begin with a flat bet that is about two percent of your table stake.
After you are comfortable making and keeping track of many Come bets with their Odds, you will want to learn to make Place bets with your profits.
"I suppose I was mad. Every great genius is mad upon the subject in which he is greatest. The unsuccessful madman is disgraced and called a lunatic." Fitz-James O'Brien, The Diamond Lens (1858)
August 10th, 2018 at 7:43:52 PM
permalink
you say that as IF it IS a fact.Quote: pwcrabbYou will have a great deal more fun making many Come bets and taking only moderate Odds.
It is ONLY your opinion.
Craps players I have seen that make only pass and come have NO FUN when they lose, as many times they lose ALL with 1 roll of the dice.
where is the fun in that I ask you?
name 3 solid reasons and you win a prize!Quote: pwcrabbIn contrast, there are solid reasons to never lay any Odds at all on the Dark Side.
well, this time thanks for sharing more of your interesting opinions
are you sure?Quote: pwcrabbI recommend staying on the Bright Side.
why?
please share your opinions on this
this is so interesting
omg!Quote: pwcrabbIf you were to play 100 games of Pass and Come without any Odds at all, you would have less than a three percent chance of losing more than ten bet units.
what IS 100 games of pass and come?
Is that 100 decisions, 100 rolls?
100 pass line bets resolved
and only a 3% chance
no way
you are in blue sky now as I know what I say (it is my opinion)
what gives??
this was and is so disgusting in so many ways, imo
stay betting the dark side
but interesting
I Heart Vi Hart
August 10th, 2018 at 7:50:18 PM
permalink
mustangsally, I just wanted to say I have the urge to go push “Thank You” on every post you ever made.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
August 10th, 2018 at 7:52:02 PM
permalink
For 100 rolls, 3% chance of losing over 10 units sounds about right. Assume that’s about 30 decisions so 10 units would be roughly 2 SD south of expectations.
If starting with only 10 units, risk of ruin would be about double that %.
If starting with only 10 units, risk of ruin would be about double that %.
It’s all about making that GTA
August 10th, 2018 at 11:31:31 PM
permalink
what kind of betting?Quote: Ace2If starting with only 10 units, risk of ruin would be about double that %.
the OP (can't figure out what he/she is after,imo)
or
another poster?
My blog has some RoR for Molly/All betting
I did it for someone long time ago (I was nice back then)
I got this from a simulation
pass/come every roll for 100 rolls
no odds are taken
start bank = 10 units
each bet = 1 unit
ruin = about 32%
a 20 unit bankroll has a 3.4% RoR with pass/come every roll betting system
no odds are taken
I used WinCraps software for my sims
at one point in time.
time for Baccarat, Mom!
Sally
I Heart Vi Hart
August 11th, 2018 at 5:43:22 AM
permalink
Lowest would be 100x odds.Quote: rgn1980Local casino offers 100x odds and has $10 tables on weeknights.
I know the lowest house edge would be pass with 10x odds,
As to the rest of this thread I am not sure what is what.
I could barely afford the ten dollar line bets. At 100x odds, (if I could afford it) I would surely keel over with the Ticker going on one final Tock. That would not be much fun (for me).
August 11th, 2018 at 1:37:11 PM
permalink
According the Wizard's combined house edge on pass/come w/odds, the house edge goes down as the ratio from odds:pass gets higher. I guess what I'm asking is does it really make a big enough difference for the house edge to go from 0.00326 (5x odds) to 0.00184 (10x).
August 11th, 2018 at 2:49:23 PM
permalink
variations in the HE can be misleading when changing bet size or when combining bets. Famously, really, adding free odds to a Craps line bet does not change the expected loss, the EV, in the long run.
Therefore always look at the change in the EV when examining bet combinations.
Having said that, if you keep your total action the same but are putting more of it into the free odds, that is a horse of a different color.
Therefore always look at the change in the EV when examining bet combinations.
Having said that, if you keep your total action the same but are putting more of it into the free odds, that is a horse of a different color.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
August 12th, 2018 at 8:32:37 AM
permalink
Bet as much free odds as you are comfortable.
Last edited by: klimate10 on Aug 12, 2018
August 12th, 2018 at 9:04:54 AM
permalink
Free odds are great, always take the max YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH. Even 1x is good. No need to bet 100x or even 10x. How many come bets is up to you; I personally like a come bet every roll, or close to it.
By the way, the Hooters casino in Las Vegas has 3x4x5x odds on their live table ($10 game), and 5x odds on their electronic bubble craps machine ($2 game). The bubble craps is a *much* better game.
By the way, the Hooters casino in Las Vegas has 3x4x5x odds on their live table ($10 game), and 5x odds on their electronic bubble craps machine ($2 game). The bubble craps is a *much* better game.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
August 12th, 2018 at 5:18:50 PM
permalink
Yes, this is EXACTLY what I was talking about. Thank you for posting.
Seems difference in in EV between 5x and 10x is nominal.
Seems difference in in EV between 5x and 10x is nominal.
August 12th, 2018 at 5:19:49 PM
permalink
Quote: teddysFree odds are great, always take the max YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH. Even 1x is good. No need to bet 100x or even 10x. How many come bets is up to you; I personally like a come bet every roll, or close to it.
By the way, the Hooters casino in Las Vegas has 3x4x5x odds on their live table ($10 game), and 5x odds on their electronic bubble craps machine ($2 game). The bubble craps is a *much* better game.
Ha - I love bubble craps! Always seem to walk away winning and it's so cartoony.
September 30th, 2018 at 9:09:51 AM
permalink
When I first started gambling Binion's in Vegas offered 100x odds. This was in the mid to late '90s. I experimented with it, placing a dollar on the line and $100. behind, with mixed success, but I didn't really give the table a chance.
My banker, who is a big gambler himself, used to say that 100X odds are good - for the house. He says that the usual 3 - 5X is much better for the player, and I have read that 10X is good for the player too.
My banker, who is a big gambler himself, used to say that 100X odds are good - for the house. He says that the usual 3 - 5X is much better for the player, and I have read that 10X is good for the player too.
I tell you it’s wonderful to be here, man. I don’t give a damn who wins or loses. It’s just wonderful to be here with you people.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/
September 30th, 2018 at 12:18:44 PM
permalink
If I buy-in for $60 and have a base bet of $6 on the line, I can quadruple my money with 14 wins ahead at $240 on a progression. Then I can split that into 20X line bets, and 20X single odds bets. So far I've been having poor luck and thinking of betting Don't and have to stop giving these shooters the benefit of the doubt despite their high roller status.
October 1st, 2018 at 2:09:06 PM
permalink
Both Probabilistic and Statistical analyses are highly reliable guides to understanding natural phenomena such as dice behavior over time. Neither of them relies upon emotion or personal experience, which of course are why we enjoy gambling. However, we give ourselves a better opportunity to win if we set aside emotion and personal experience when we do our planning.
Probabilistic analysis tells us the following about Pass and Come House Advantage (HA):
If No Odds, then the expected HA is negative 1.414141 % of the total amount to be wagered.
If Single Odds, then the expected HA is negative 0.848485 %
If 100x Odds, then the expected HA is negative 0.020899 %
Statistical analysis tells us that Variance increases as bet size increases, which is precisely the effect of 100x Odds. Large Variance is good for the Bigger Bankroll, meaning the House. MDawg, your banker was on target.
Statistical analysis also tells us that after 100 completed game outcomes of either Pass or Come with no Odds, the mean expected result is a loss of 1.414141 wagers, with a standard deviation of 4.9995 wagers. A net loss of ten wagers would be twice the standard deviation on the down side only, which is very unlikely. Sorry, Sally. However, I enjoy your sarcasm.
Probabilistic analysis tells us the following about Pass and Come House Advantage (HA):
If No Odds, then the expected HA is negative 1.414141 % of the total amount to be wagered.
If Single Odds, then the expected HA is negative 0.848485 %
If 100x Odds, then the expected HA is negative 0.020899 %
Statistical analysis tells us that Variance increases as bet size increases, which is precisely the effect of 100x Odds. Large Variance is good for the Bigger Bankroll, meaning the House. MDawg, your banker was on target.
Statistical analysis also tells us that after 100 completed game outcomes of either Pass or Come with no Odds, the mean expected result is a loss of 1.414141 wagers, with a standard deviation of 4.9995 wagers. A net loss of ten wagers would be twice the standard deviation on the down side only, which is very unlikely. Sorry, Sally. However, I enjoy your sarcasm.
"I suppose I was mad. Every great genius is mad upon the subject in which he is greatest. The unsuccessful madman is disgraced and called a lunatic." Fitz-James O'Brien, The Diamond Lens (1858)
October 1st, 2018 at 2:56:40 PM
permalink
Quote: pwcrabbBoth Probabilistic and Statistical analyses are highly reliable guides to understanding natural phenomena such as dice behavior over time. Neither of them relies upon emotion or personal experience, which of course are why we enjoy gambling. However, we give ourselves a better opportunity to win if we set aside emotion and personal experience when we do our planning.
Probabilistic analysis tells us the following about Pass and Come House Advantage (HA):
If No Odds, then the expected HA is negative 1.414141 % of the total amount to be wagered.
If Single Odds, then the expected HA is negative 0.848485 %
If 100x Odds, then the expected HA is negative 0.020899 %
Statistical analysis tells us that Variance increases as bet size increases, which is precisely the effect of 100x Odds. Large Variance is good for the Bigger Bankroll, meaning the House. MDawg, your banker was on target.
Statistical analysis also tells us that after 100 completed game outcomes of either Pass or Come with no Odds, the mean expected result is a loss of 1.414141 wagers, with a standard deviation of 4.9995 wagers. A net loss of ten wagers would be twice the standard deviation on the down side only, which is very unlikely. Sorry, Sally. However, I enjoy your sarcasm.
Would you rather play $100 on the pass line with no odds or $1 on the pass line with $99 odds?
I find it a very easy question to answer. The rest is just about bankroll management and whether you can afford to utilize full odds.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
October 1st, 2018 at 3:14:06 PM
permalink
I agree, it is a very easy question to answer. For a single wager, after which I leave the casino, the best strategy is $1 on the Pass line and maximum Odds.
For an extended series of wagers, however, my preferred strategy does not include maximum Odds. I want the full revenue effect of favorable Sevens, which will be approximately thirty percent of all Sevens. With very high Odds multiples, virtually all of the expected future revenue stream will be received from wins on repeated Box numbers. I want my revenue profile to closely mirror the probability profile of all of the numbers, including the Naturals. I am willing to accept a negligible aggravation of the HA in order to accomplish such a revenue profile, which is accomplished at slightly greater than single Odds.
For an extended series of wagers, however, my preferred strategy does not include maximum Odds. I want the full revenue effect of favorable Sevens, which will be approximately thirty percent of all Sevens. With very high Odds multiples, virtually all of the expected future revenue stream will be received from wins on repeated Box numbers. I want my revenue profile to closely mirror the probability profile of all of the numbers, including the Naturals. I am willing to accept a negligible aggravation of the HA in order to accomplish such a revenue profile, which is accomplished at slightly greater than single Odds.
Last edited by: pwcrabb on Oct 1, 2018
"I suppose I was mad. Every great genius is mad upon the subject in which he is greatest. The unsuccessful madman is disgraced and called a lunatic." Fitz-James O'Brien, The Diamond Lens (1858)
October 1st, 2018 at 3:24:20 PM
permalink
For any number of wagers it’s the same answer, statistically, probabilistically, logically.Quote: pwcrabbI agree, it is a very easy question to answer. For a single wager, after which I leave the casino, the best strategy is $1 on the Pass line and maximum Odds.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
October 1st, 2018 at 3:32:55 PM
permalink
If the only question is how best to minimize the HA, then the only answer is to maximize the Odds. In craps as in life, however, there are many questions.
"I suppose I was mad. Every great genius is mad upon the subject in which he is greatest. The unsuccessful madman is disgraced and called a lunatic." Fitz-James O'Brien, The Diamond Lens (1858)
October 1st, 2018 at 4:28:33 PM
permalink
It’s more general than that. The easiest way to visualize it is with a simple principle that anyone betting more than the minimum on the PL without betting max odds is better off lowering the PL bet and increasing the odds bet to keep the same amount at risk.Quote: pwcrabbIf the only question is how best to minimize the HA, then the only answer is to maximize the Odds. In craps as in life, however, there are many questions.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
October 1st, 2018 at 6:03:38 PM
permalink
I recommend to stay on Bright Side.
Doing that. You will not piss everybody off at the table. Including dealer.
Doing that. You will not piss everybody off at the table. Including dealer.
October 1st, 2018 at 6:11:40 PM
permalink
Craps is a lot of work, and requires patience, waiting for when the table is "hot." Other than that patience, and being able to recognize when it is hot, it's all random and no skill.
Some would say there is no such thing as hot or cold and that it is always random, but I disagree.
Some would say there is no such thing as hot or cold and that it is always random, but I disagree.
I tell you it’s wonderful to be here, man. I don’t give a damn who wins or loses. It’s just wonderful to be here with you people.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/
October 1st, 2018 at 6:22:28 PM
permalink
I recommend to stay on Bright Side.
Doing that. You will not piss everybody off at the table. Including dealer.
Doing that. You will not piss everybody off at the table. Including dealer.
October 1st, 2018 at 11:22:20 PM
permalink
I like to bet the Don’t Pass on comeout rolls until a shooter makes a point, then I’ll switch to the Pass Line. It’s a fun superstition and I’ve had some great sessions.Quote: speedycrapI recommend to stay on Bright Side.
Doing that. You will not piss everybody off at the table. Including dealer.
While playing the Don’t, I sometimes tip the dealers by placing a Don’t bet for them next to mine, though I never put odds on dealer bets. I never got a bad reaction.
I do make exceptions when it’s my turn to shoot. Sometimes I will bet the Pass Line and sometimes the Don’t. I have no problem “betting against” myself if my gut feels that way. The dealers usually seem to think it’s funny.
One time at the Luxor a couple years ago, I had most most of the table betting the Don’t. I was the only person winning (a lot) and others followed suit. They were mostly newbies and didn’t even know what it was.
Laying odds is fun. Slightly different procedure with heeling/bridging chips on the correct side. And inverse payoffs of course. It’s a nice changeup and keeps things interesting.
It’s all about making that GTA
October 4th, 2018 at 6:27:39 PM
permalink
MDawg is so correct about the patience to wait for the good times. Exercising that patience and other forms of self-control is the most valuable skill in gambling.
Of course dice outcomes are random, but random events occur in clusters. Traffic accidents and radioactive decay are classic examples. Poker players readily acknowledge that their good hands seem to arrive closely spaced. Clusters in binary games are particularly easy to describe. In binary games such as coin toss and Pass/Don't, exactly 50.0 percent of all outcomes will occur in sequences of three or greater and 31.25 percent will occur in sequences of four or greater. The formula for the long-term proportions of clusters of size (N) is as follows: (N) / [(2)^(N+1)] .
Of course dice outcomes are random, but random events occur in clusters. Traffic accidents and radioactive decay are classic examples. Poker players readily acknowledge that their good hands seem to arrive closely spaced. Clusters in binary games are particularly easy to describe. In binary games such as coin toss and Pass/Don't, exactly 50.0 percent of all outcomes will occur in sequences of three or greater and 31.25 percent will occur in sequences of four or greater. The formula for the long-term proportions of clusters of size (N) is as follows: (N) / [(2)^(N+1)] .
"I suppose I was mad. Every great genius is mad upon the subject in which he is greatest. The unsuccessful madman is disgraced and called a lunatic." Fitz-James O'Brien, The Diamond Lens (1858)
October 4th, 2018 at 8:58:01 PM
permalink
I can’t tell if you’re being serious.Quote: pwcrabbMDawg is so correct about the patience to wait for the good times. Exercising that patience and other forms of self-control is the most valuable skill in gambling.
Of course things almost always come in clusters. Flip a coin 10 times, the chance of it going exactly HTHT...or THTH...is 2 in 1,024. The other 99.8 percent of the time there will be at least one “cluster”.
Dice and coins have no memory. What you’re describing is gambler’s fallacy.
It’s all about making that GTA
October 5th, 2018 at 4:43:16 AM
permalink
Quote: Ace2
Dice and coins have no memory. What you’re describing is gambler’s fallacy.
But surely sometime the girl will not be from an agency and the dealer will not have 21 when I have 20 and the free buffet will be fresh and tasty and the drinks will not be watered down.
October 6th, 2018 at 10:31:41 AM
permalink
There's still free buffets??
October 6th, 2018 at 11:29:26 AM
permalink
comped ones.Quote: cowboyThere's still free buffets??
October 9th, 2018 at 7:38:59 PM
permalink
Gambler's Fallacy is the mistaken belief that prevalence or absence of specific outcomes in past events will influence prevalence or absence in future events. Causation across time is disallowed by the notion of independent events. Clustering of outcomes is entirely distinct from Gambler's Fallacy. Clusters can be mathematically described over infinite future events. However, the dispersal of those clusters across time is random and cannot be predicted using mathematics.
In craps for example, the magnitudes and frequencies of futures clusters of Sevens can be described but the timing of those clusters cannot be described. Over the infinite future of dice tosses, we can describe the proportion of all Sevens which will occur with zero, one, two, or any other number of intervening non-Seven tosses. Again, the timing of those clusters is logically unknowable.
Although the future may be opaque to those who limit themselves to logic, a recent spate of good luck may yet serve as a spur to boldness. In poker, a Rush of good hands can be more than mere historical oddity. In craps, perhaps a blizzard of Sevens may disincline one toward Place bets.
In craps for example, the magnitudes and frequencies of futures clusters of Sevens can be described but the timing of those clusters cannot be described. Over the infinite future of dice tosses, we can describe the proportion of all Sevens which will occur with zero, one, two, or any other number of intervening non-Seven tosses. Again, the timing of those clusters is logically unknowable.
Although the future may be opaque to those who limit themselves to logic, a recent spate of good luck may yet serve as a spur to boldness. In poker, a Rush of good hands can be more than mere historical oddity. In craps, perhaps a blizzard of Sevens may disincline one toward Place bets.
"I suppose I was mad. Every great genius is mad upon the subject in which he is greatest. The unsuccessful madman is disgraced and called a lunatic." Fitz-James O'Brien, The Diamond Lens (1858)
October 9th, 2018 at 7:45:24 PM
permalink
Sounds exactly like an eloquent version of Gambler’s fallacy.
Let’s see an example backed up by math instead of superstition.
Let’s see an example backed up by math instead of superstition.
It’s all about making that GTA
October 9th, 2018 at 11:34:45 PM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffBut surely sometime the girl will not be from an agency and the dealer will not have 21 when I have 20 and the free buffet will be fresh and tasty and the drinks will not be watered down.
Yes, sir! rofl - you could not have selected better instances of "Gambler's Fallacy".
October 10th, 2018 at 1:38:09 PM
permalink
Ace2 desires to see a mathematical example of exactly what, specifically?
"I suppose I was mad. Every great genius is mad upon the subject in which he is greatest. The unsuccessful madman is disgraced and called a lunatic." Fitz-James O'Brien, The Diamond Lens (1858)
October 16th, 2018 at 11:37:38 PM
permalink
For instance you state that a recent blizzard of sevens may disincline one to make place bets. Please provide a mathematical explanation of why that may be the case.Quote: pwcrabbAce2 desires to see a mathematical example of exactly what, specifically?
Just math please.
It’s all about making that GTA
October 19th, 2018 at 12:18:46 PM
permalink
From the viewpoint of a bettor making Place bets, let us define a Short Seven as occurring the first, second, third, or fourth toss following the previous Seven. If we use the subjective estimate of (1/6) for the probability of Seven, such undesirable outcomes together represent 51.78 percent of all future Sevens. This result is sufficiently close to 50.00 percent to permit application of theorems of conditional probability using a binary model with uniform prior probabilities.
In his Memoir on the Probability of the Causes of Events [Statistical Science 1 (1986) 359-378] in which he expanded on Bayes' results, Laplace (1774) derived the following for a frequentist estimation of future probability: Using equal prior probabilities in a binary model, and given (m) successes in (n) trials, the probability of success on the next trial is (m+1) / (n+2).
This ratio is the deceptively simple result of a series of calculations using combinatorics and integrals over a binomial distribution of arbitrarily large degree. This result is sufficiently robust to permit estimations using non-uniform subjectively derived priors as well.
Note that (m+1) / (n+2) approaches (m/n) as both m and n become large. Note also that if (m) = (n) then this ratio approaches 1.
Place bets become increasingly ill-advised as the number of consecutive Short Sevens grows.
In his Memoir on the Probability of the Causes of Events [Statistical Science 1 (1986) 359-378] in which he expanded on Bayes' results, Laplace (1774) derived the following for a frequentist estimation of future probability: Using equal prior probabilities in a binary model, and given (m) successes in (n) trials, the probability of success on the next trial is (m+1) / (n+2).
This ratio is the deceptively simple result of a series of calculations using combinatorics and integrals over a binomial distribution of arbitrarily large degree. This result is sufficiently robust to permit estimations using non-uniform subjectively derived priors as well.
Note that (m+1) / (n+2) approaches (m/n) as both m and n become large. Note also that if (m) = (n) then this ratio approaches 1.
Place bets become increasingly ill-advised as the number of consecutive Short Sevens grows.
"I suppose I was mad. Every great genius is mad upon the subject in which he is greatest. The unsuccessful madman is disgraced and called a lunatic." Fitz-James O'Brien, The Diamond Lens (1858)
November 29th, 2018 at 7:20:19 PM
permalink
Quote: pwcrabb
In his Memoir on the Probability of the Causes of Events [Statistical Science 1 (1986) 359-378] in which he expanded on Bayes' results, Laplace (1774) derived the following for a frequentist estimation of future probability: Using equal prior probabilities in a binary model, and given (m) successes in (n) trials, the probability of success on the next trial is (m+1) / (n+2).
Here's what Wikipedia says about this:
" Under the assumption that little or nothing is known a priori about the relative plausibilities of the outcomes, Laplace derived a formula for the probability that the next trial will be a success.
Pr(next outcome is success)= (s+1) / (n+2)
where s is the number of previously observed successes and n is the total number of observed trials. It is still used as an estimator for the probability of an event if we know the event space, but have only a small number of samples."
Of course, this doesn't apply here, since we know the probabilities involved. Applying that formula to coin flips, if we had 6 heads in 10 flips, we would calculate the probability of a head in the next roll as (6+1)/ 10+2) = .583, or if 4 in 10, then (4+1) / (10+2) = .417. Absurd.
Quote: pwcrabb
Place bets become increasingly ill-advised as the number of consecutive Short Sevens grows.
Gambler's Fallacy II
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Cheers,
Alan Shank
"How's that for a squabble, Pugh?" Peter Boyle as Mister Moon in "Yellowbeard"
November 30th, 2018 at 5:39:05 AM
permalink
I'm enjoying the language/the writing.
Who cares if the conclusion is right or wrong?
Lol.
pwcrabb, you're with NASA, I'm guessing?
Who cares if the conclusion is right or wrong?
Lol.
pwcrabb, you're with NASA, I'm guessing?
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
November 30th, 2018 at 4:06:45 PM
permalink
Goatcabin Alan Shank cheerfully suggests that the probabilities for real devices are known and settled a priori by hypothesis. The majority of practicing professional statisticians would disagree. They support the historically dominant view that testable probabilities can be acceptably established only following extensive trials. This view is known as the Frequentist school of thought.
The fairness of neither dice nor coins can be assumed ex ante. Only hypothetical devices can be so specified. Laplace aimed his thesis directly at the tossed hypothetical coin of unknown fairness.
Given Goatcabin's unbalanced results even in his very limited sample space, wise gamblers would adjust their future wagers on tosses of that particular coin. Persistent imbalances become increasingly persuasive.
The fairness of neither dice nor coins can be assumed ex ante. Only hypothetical devices can be so specified. Laplace aimed his thesis directly at the tossed hypothetical coin of unknown fairness.
Given Goatcabin's unbalanced results even in his very limited sample space, wise gamblers would adjust their future wagers on tosses of that particular coin. Persistent imbalances become increasingly persuasive.
"I suppose I was mad. Every great genius is mad upon the subject in which he is greatest. The unsuccessful madman is disgraced and called a lunatic." Fitz-James O'Brien, The Diamond Lens (1858)
December 1st, 2018 at 1:55:49 AM
permalink
Quote: cowboyThere's still free buffets??
Sure if you get a comp and a head of the line pass, it is free or perhaps 'free'.
It is true that dice and coins have no memory, but players have memories.
Imperfect ones. Influenced by hope and alcohol.
Its the players who keep thinking the next girl won't be from some agency.
Or that the sweet young thing that sat beside them at the BJ table really
is enthralled with a man more than twice her age.
Or that the next drink won't be just as watered down as the last one.
But when it comes to coins and dice, if you really want to know
what the next result will be there is indeed one very easy way
to find out: wait for the event to take place, then you know!
