Statistically impossible
Quote: SOOPOOIn another thread it was alleged by an 'expert' that getting 3 royals in some defined period of play was 'statistically impossible'. As we all know it is 'possible' to get 3 royals in a row. The 'expert' did not say it was 'impossible' to get those 3 royals, he said it was 'statistically impossible'. I believe that the phrase 'statistically impossible' makes no sense. The word impossible can not be modified. It is an absolute. What the 'expert' could have said was 'the odds of the royals happening by random chance was so small that we believe it is more likely that some sort of cheating was going on'. (The subsequent analysis shows that is likely not a true statement, anyway.) Anyway, do any of you use the phrase 'statistically impossible' when you really mean 'extremely unlikely'?
Yes, I do all the time. It is simply an understood phrase.
Quote: SOOPOOAnyway, do any of you use the phrase 'statistically impossible' when you really mean 'extremely unlikely'?
No. Looking at it, "statistically imopssible" would mean something like your odds of drawing a royal while playing backgammon. Somehting that's plain imossible.
When discussing something that's very unlikely I like to say "the chances of that are infinitesimally small."
Quote: NareedNo. Looking at it, "statistically imopssible" would mean something like your odds of drawing a royal while playing backgammon. Somehting that's plain imossible.
When discussing something that's very unlikely I like to say "the chances of that are infinitesimally small."
And three royals in 9000 hands doesn't even rise to that level of unlikelihood. Indeed, one of my family members used to be a higher-stakes VP player -- he'd play $5 and $10 machines -- and he's hit 3 royals in well under 9000 hands. I think he even hit two royals in one trip once.
We use the term statistically impossible for those events that have a probability so close to zero, for example, 1 in 500 billion, that we expect them never to occur in our lifetimes. However, they are not strictly impossible events since they have a non-zero probability of occuring.
Statistically impossible events happen all the time: for example, we call the odds of dealing a perfect spaded bridge hand (13 cards dealt, all of which are spades) to be statistically impossible (a 1 in 635.013 billion chance), but this actually did happen back in 1935 (see: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/5804/title/Math_Trek__Thirteen_Spades)
Hope that helps.
Capt. Jack Sparrow: "Not probable."
:)
So, if an event has a very small chance of happening, but a real one, then it's not impossible.
Say an RNG picks one number between one and one trillion. Then you try to guess. The odds of guessing the right number ought to be one in one trillion. That's infinitesimally small, but not impossible.
Quote: JL2Something is either possible or it isn't. Throwing the word "statistically" onto it is just something else that's done on purpose for the sake of confusing others.
That's only true if you want to completely disregard the differentiations in the likelihood of things occurring, which I suppose is a core tenet of the Singer Way.
Quote: NareedThat's infinitesimally small, but not impossible.
Not even "infinitesimally small". Like "impossible", the term "infinitesimal" has its precise meaning as well (it means infinitely small), and cannot be applied to finite quantities like one-trillionth.
(And also, a smaller problem is that, since "infinitesimal" means "infinitely small, "infinitesimally small" gotta be "infinitely small small" :))
Quote: JL2I got 3 royals on a 10-play machine 2 years ago when I was dealt 4 of the royal cards. I've also been dealt a royal flush on a triple-play machine when they first came out. Neither of these events were anywhere near being within 9000 hands, so how statistically impossible is that? It doesn't even seem that unlikely.
That's kind of apples to oranges comparison, isn't it now?
Though I'm curious... what's more likely... to get 3 from 10 on a 4-to-a-royal, get a dealt a natural royal, or get 3 royals in 9,000 hands.
I suspect the last of the three.
Quote: rdw4potusThat's only true if you want to completely disregard the differentiations in the likelihood of things occurring, which I suppose is a core tenet of the Singer Way.
In fact, it's even "possible" for something to occur that has a statistical probability of zero. For example, you and I both pick a random real number between 0 and 1. The calculated probability that our numbers match is zero. But they can still match, so it's "possible".
Quote: thecesspitThat's kind of apples to oranges comparison, isn't it now?
Though I'm curious... what's more likely... to get 3 from 10 on a 4-to-a-royal, get a dealt a natural royal, or get 3 royals in 9,000 hands.
I suspect the last of the three.
I have no idea, and what the statistics of it are means nothing to me and most players. What I did was jump up and go to the bank both times. That's the only place numbers matter in LV. Why some have to dissect every little world event down into numbers so they can sound impressive talking about it, is a mystery to me.
Chance of a natural dealt Royal on one hand :: 0.000154%
Chance of hitting 3 from 10 draws on multiplay :: 0.0972%
The 3 from 10 is the most unlikely event though to see... you'll be in that position very, very rarely, whereas every time you play VP you'll be in a position to get a natural Royal. And people who play a lot of VP are going to have more than one cycle of 3 Royals (and it's even easier to happen if you only start counting from a Royal and see if you get two more in the next 8,999 hands).
Transparency anybody?
Quote: weaselmanNot even "infinitesimally small". Like "impossible", the term "infinitesimal" has its precise meaning as well (it means infinitely small), and cannot be applied to finite quantities like one-trillionth.
In math this would mean an infinitesimal figure would be very close to zero; zero meaning nothing. In that case no matter what amount you pick, there will always be an infinite set of possible lower amounts. So, yes 1/1,000,000,000,000 is infinitesimal, even if there are an infinte number of smaller numbers.
Quote:(And also, a smaller problem is that, since "infinitesimal" means "infinitely small, "infinitesimally small" gotta be "infinitely small small" :))
As pleonasms go, that's a hard one to spot. I like ones like Automatic Teller Machiine machine (ATM machine) a lot better.
Quote: NareedSo, yes 1/1,000,000,000,000 is infinitesimal, even if there are an infinte number of smaller numbers.
No. Infinitesimal means "infinitely small". 1/1,000,000,000,000 is not infinitesimal just like 1,000,000,000,000 is not infinite.
Infinite and infinitesimal amounts cannot be expressed as real numbers.
Quote:
As pleonasms go, that's a hard one to spot. I like ones like Automatic Teller Machiine machine (ATM machine) a lot better.
Yes. This is called RRS syndrome, which stands for "Redundant Repetition Syndrome syndrome"
Quote: weaselmanNo. Infinitesimal means "infinitely small". 1/1,000,000,000,000 is not infinitesimal just like 1,000,000,000,000 is not infinite.
Infinite and infinitesimal amounts cannot be expressed as real numbers.
Whatever. To most people any amount above 6 might as well be infinite :P
Quote:Yes. This is called RRS syndrome, which stands for "Redundant Repetition Syndrome syndrome"
The worst I've seen is "Banco BBVA-Bancomer" The full name is "Banco Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria Banco de Comercio." Which translates as "Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria Bank Bank of Commerce Bank."
Oh, and I realize that's not an infinite number of instances of the word "bank" :P
The probability of throwing the dice 80 times in a row is 1 in 98,317 , which is probabilities that slot machines use all the time. It occurs to me that there should be a prize in a casino for hitting that level. You would think it would happen at least once every two to three months for a given table.
But it seems that if two decades ago they that Stanley Fujitake hit 119 rolls of the dice (1 in 31.5 million) , and Patricia Demauro hit 154 rolls of the dice (1 in 5.9 billion), which exceeds the first number by a multiple of 177, then someone should have made an intermediate number between 119 and 154.
A hundred rolls of the dice is one in 1,895,441 which seems to low to base anything on in a casino.
I get a royal playing single line 25c Friday night (My first ever)
Saturday I get up..I get a DEALT 25c Royal.
Tell me the odds of THIS happening.
Quote: TIMSPEEDI'll do you guys one better..
I get a royal playing single line 25c Friday night (My first ever)
Saturday I get up..I get a DEALT 25c Royal.
Tell me the odds of THIS happening.
How many hands played between the two royals :)
(answer is : bloody small in any case as drawing a natural Royal is 1 in 694,000 (ish)).
Quote: TIMSPEEDI'll do you guys one better..
I get a royal playing single line 25c Friday night (My first ever)
Saturday I get up..I get a DEALT 25c Royal.
Tell me the odds of THIS happening.
Congratulations on your win(s)! It is good that you understand that it was luck and not some incredibly stupid system that led to this very rare and fortunate occurrence.
Quote: JL2Congratulations! And as long as you're not Mr. singer or a student of his, these math guys will first tell you that they believe you, then they're grab the slide rules and get to work. Otherwise, it's "go troll somewhere else".
I'm going to regret this, but here goes:
Timspeed does not claim to have a method for obtaining such results, nor does he claim to have proof of such of a method. And most important he does not claim to have achieved his results in defiance of known facts. Actually he's asking a question. The odds he asks about are the same whether he had those royals or not. If he's lying he affects nothing.
Of course seeing how you cannot tell the difference when it's plain, does explain why you preffer motiveless anti-Singer conspiracy theories.
So get this: When Singer stops acting like a fraud, people will stop treating him like one.
For the record, I don't think Tim is lying.
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b146/TIMSPEED/Jackpots/?action=view¤t=RoyalFlush.jpg
(I was so excited I took the picture before the 4000 credits racked up)
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b146/TIMSPEED/Jackpots/?action=view¤t=RoyalFlush2.jpg
(This time I waited)
Also, this is the WORST way to start a vP career...as you think it's achievable OFTEN...and as it is, I think I've hit like 25 Royals since May of 08 (When I hit that first one)
Quote: rdw4potusCongratulations on your win(s)! It is good that you understand that it was luck and not some incredibly stupid system that led to this very rare and fortunate occurrence.
We can not rule out the numerical value of the letters in his name , can we ?
Quote: gofaster87People also have bad runs of not hitting a royal in 250000 hands.
So I've heard...but JESUS I hope it never happens to me.
Quote: TIMSPEEDAlso, this is the WORST way to start a vP career...as you think it's achievable OFTEN...and as it is, I think I've hit like 25 Royals since May of 08 (When I hit that first one)
Everything balances out. I've never hit a royal...
Quote: NareedI'm going to regret this, but here goes:
Timspeed does not claim to have a method for obtaining such results, nor does he claim to have proof of such of a method. And most important he does not claim to have achieved his results in defiance of known facts. Actually he's asking a question. The odds he asks about are the same whether he had those royals or not. If he's lying he affects nothing.
Of course seeing how you cannot tell the difference when it's plain, does explain why you preffer motiveless anti-Singer conspiracy theories.
So get this: When Singer stops acting like a fraud, people will stop treating him like one.
For the record, I don't think Tim is lying.
No regrets.
Why would anyone have any reason to believe ANYONE lies about hitting a winning hand, especially if they put up a photo of it/them? When I look back at the Jerry Logan VERY BIG (at least to me) winners posted here, half or more of the comments center around disbelief & fraud, even though there's pictures! Is that what makes you think Mr. singer's a fraud....because a student of his posts pictures? Or maybe it's because he put up a challenge that he can prove things, and nobody had the courage to accept? I'm sure that gets the goat of people who just don't want to believe him.
Any vp jackpot win is because of luck. People who get lots of royals are very lucky people.
Quote: NareedI'm going to regret this,
I should lsiten to myself more often. I'm as brilliant as I am ravishing, after all :P
I'm done with Jerry (yes, Jerry, we all know it's you). His latest post is making me think of the phrase "No jury would convict me." I don't mind arguing with someone impervious to reason, but it's pointless to expect a broken record to change its tune.
Should anyone persist, good luck.
Quote: Nareedbut it's pointless to expect a broken record to change its tune.
You mean a broken HEEL, correct?
My name is not Jerry, but I'll be anyone you like depending on how you dress.
Quote: JL2My name is not Jerry, but I'll be anyone you like depending on how you dress.
This is a tolerance web site. You don't have to like everyone, but personal swipes are not OK.
I calculate a reduction in odds by a factor of 4.5, from 1:649,740 to 1:143,363 to get a royal flush, if you always draw to a RF. It's important that I don't mean to play to the optimal poker strategy, but to throw away everything that doesn't lead to a RF.
Does anyone else get the same answer?
1:42,500 (ish) is the chance to end up with a Royal after the draw playing best strategy.
Quote: pacomartinI calculate a reduction in odds by a factor of 4.5, from 1:649,740 to 1:143,363 to get a royal flush, if you always draw to a RF. It's important that I don't mean to play to the optimal poker strategy, but to throw away everything that doesn't lead to a RF.
Do you include plays like holding one to a royal?
I mean, for example, say you get 9s,9h,9d,2c and Kh. The right play is to keep the 9s (duh!) but would drawing to a royal would mean to just hold the King? I think you meant something more along the lines of keeping any two to a royal or higher, not one to a royal.
Royal or Bust.
Quote: thecesspitPretty sure he means holding one to a royal or none to a royal.
Royal or Bust.
Yes, I mean Royal or Bust. If you have a 10, and four 2's, you throw away the four 2's.
Quote: pacomartinThis is a tolerance web site. You don't have to like everyone, but personal swipes are not OK.
But they support being banned, no? And who wouldn't expect one taco to stand up for another, no matter how odd or strange that weirdo cross-dresser with a psychological problem may be? No wonder it has a family problem and lacks even 2 pesos to rub together. What's the definition of FAILURE again?
In the short time I was here I made it worth it. Once Mr. singer laid down the gauntlet for all the supposed big talking, hot-shot gamblers who portray all that math intellect around here, everyone saw what a pack of cowards and phoneys regulate this place. Already on one of the other boards they're talking about how he tried to face off against the biggest math chest-pounders in the business here and made them look like chumps. And who can forget how uneasy it was for the apologists as they were forced to watch MathE studder through multiple posts either making up excuse after excuse about why he avoided the very clear singer challenge to him, or his stammering about how he wouldn't contact the guy to get it done. Afraid at every turn. Is it any wonder singer has prevailed over every critic in the gaming world for years, and he will continue to do so until someone finally gets the courage to take him on. What chickens!
I leave/mkl will return.
Ban Me Please....
Quote: JL2But they support being banned, no? And who wouldn't expect one taco to stand up for another, no matter how odd or strange that weirdo cross-dresser with a psychological problem may be?
Actually, I am a gringo. But my grandfather was born in Spain, and Paco is a Spanish nickname. But I do like tacos very much.
I just looked up Paco in the urban dictionary. It says it is a rascist term that refers to a sterotypical Mexican-American.
Quote: JL2... I leave/mkl will return.
I'm not sure at all that I understand this statement. Is this a promise that the 20-posts-per-day, offensive-and-oh-so-minor contributor is leaving? Is it a promise that the 14-posts-per-day, similar-nature-but-opposite-viewpoint contributor is destined to be back on the forum as a replacement? Does this provide sufficient basis for another poll as to which annoyance the other members would prefer to endure?
Quote: pacomartin... I just looked up Paco in the urban dictionary. It says it is a rascist term that refers to a sterotypical Mexican-American.
I have a Peruvian neighbor who named his dog Paco. I don't think that was intended as racist or even derogatory in any manner. More likely intended as an endearing term.
Quote: pacomartinActually, I am a gringo. But my grandfather was born in Spain, and Paco is a Spanish nickname.
Well, I was born in Mexico as were my parents, but my grandparents came from Poland and Lithuania.
I had a feeling you were of Spaniard rather than Mexican ancestry.
Quote:But I do like tacos very much.
Me too. When I'm not on a diet. Quesadillas, grilled, are a poor substitute.
Paco, as I'm sure you know, is the diminutive for Francisco, which is the Spanish form of Frank.
Bonus question: what is Pepe the diminutive of?
Quote: JL2But they support being banned, no? And who wouldn't expect one taco to stand up for another, no matter how odd or strange that weirdo cross-dresser with a psychological problem may be? No wonder it has a family problem and lacks even 2 pesos to rub together. What's the definition of FAILURE again?
Hm. I count three personal insults and one racial slur.
Nuclear option?
Quote: JL2Ban Me Please....
Done.
With a great many events its more a cognitive difficulty. We see an episode of the 64,000 dollar question and wonder how anyone could have ever had doubts that it was fixed.
We have certain expectations and if we think an event is extremely rare we doubt ourselves if there are too many occurrences. We define something as a cluster instead of normal variance.
Quote: NareedI should lsiten to myself more often. I'm as brilliant as I am ravishing, after all :P
I'm done with Jerry (yes, Jerry, we all know it's you). His latest post is making me think of the phrase "No jury would convict me." I don't mind arguing with someone impervious to reason, but it's pointless to expect a broken record to change its tune.
Should anyone persist, good luck.
The sad thing is, if that wasn't Jerry (or Rob Singer), then there's someone else out there who acts like this. I'm going to coin a new word: antinumeracy. Worse than innumeracy, antinumeracy espouses an antipathy toward mathematics and those who understand it.
