The hoax that is the 1.41% house advantage on pass line bets
Quote: iamthepushI just wanted to be apart of this greatness before it was locked. Love the tag "lunacy"
"Greatness"? I am not sure that some would describe this thread as "greatness." For some, it is "lunacy" and welcome aboard.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymBelieve it or not, I know about the "long term." I just cringe when others insist that the 1.41% HA is something that can actually be counted on to be so consistent as to allow for very small losses and very big wins. And you are right, "half would still be a nice profit for the casino" especially when the "half" is slot play.
tuttigym
Sigh...
None of us have ever said that over a craps session of hours, days, or even months we're going to end up at 244/495. The definition of House Advantage is the long term statistical average. We also know all about variance that gives us a percentage of expected results over the number of samples. All of this is Statistics.
We all know that one hand of Caribbean Stud poker or even $3 spent in a Megabucks machine can result in an enormous jackpot that can skew your personal experience over time. It's how gambling addicts are born. It's quite possible to ride a $1 midnight and let it hit 4 times a row and end up with $27,000. It's highly unlikely, but possible. Letting a $10 blackjack bet ride four times may net you $160, and the odds of hitting that are much higher.
I just believe that if you play craps alot your overall experience is going to approach the house advantage and therefore it makes sense to bet the bets with the lowest "House Advantage". There is absolutely no way to predict dice rolls and therefore to me it makes sense to bet on the smartest bets and let the variance flatten out over time.
Quote: boymimbo
None of us have ever said that over a craps session of hours, days, or even months we're going to end up at 244/495. The definition of House Advantage is the long term statistical average. We also know all about variance that gives us a percentage of expected results over the number of samples. All of this is Statistics.
Very well put. Most players NEVER make it to the long run so variance will dominate. And member 'goatcabin' pointed out in another post that it is possible, because of variance, that a player can win even after a lifetime of playing. so there must be different "Degrees" of long term.
Quote: boymimboI just believe that if you play craps alot your overall experience is going to approach the house advantage and therefore it makes sense to bet the bets with the lowest "House Advantage". There is absolutely no way to predict dice rolls and therefore to me it makes sense to bet on the smartest bets and let the variance flatten out over time.
What then is the degree of long term "alot"?
In other words, are you expected to be closer to the HA if you play for a week straight verses only 2 days straight? Or is it a year straight to be closer? Or will variance still determine the actual outcomes? I wish I knew how to do the math on that one!
I have over 180,000 actual dice rolls I have collected over the years (almost 30 to be exact) and am working to enter them into wincraps to "see" what degree of being in the long term is and see how close I could have been to the expected HA.
Oh, Oh, I just finished reading this thread. what a ride of opinions!
Quote: boymimboNone of us have ever said that over a craps session of hours, days, or even months we're going to end up at 244/495. The definition of House Advantage is the long term statistical average. We also know all about variance that gives us a percentage of expected results over the number of samples. All of this is Statistics.
I realize that the very math/craps savy people such as yourself truly understand and embrace the "statistical average" over the extreme "long term." It is also very true that those same very smart people have expressed and believe your statements above. There is and has never been any attempt to deceive anyone at anytime. The major pitfall of expressing the low HA to the great unwashed, unknowing, undereducated masses who try to play this game is their expectations and their PERCEIVE realities which can be crushing. tuttigym
Quote: boymimboI just believe that if you play craps alot your overall experience is going to approach the house advantage and therefore it makes sense to bet the bets with the lowest "House Advantage". There is absolutely no way to predict dice rolls and therefore to me it makes sense to bet on the smartest bets and let the variance flatten out over time.
Both of your statements are thoughtful and intelligent. Time and money, however, I feel, are against the vast majority of players at most every level due to that real unpredictability and randomness which is gambling. For me, when trying to explain this game, simplicity creates an efficiency that will provide for fun and hopefully winning that exceeds 50% of ones play. tuttigym
Quote: 7winner
What then is the degree of long term "alot"?
In other words, are you expected to be closer to the HA if you play for a week straight verses only 2 days straight? Or is it a year straight to be closer? Or will variance still determine the actual outcomes? I wish I knew how to do the math on that one!
I have over 180,000 actual dice rolls I have collected over the years (almost 30 to be exact) and am working to enter them into wincraps to "see" what degree of being in the long term is and see how close I could have been to the expected HA.
I would be interested in finding out your results. The Win Craps experiences used to compute seemingly all types of data mostly deals in evidence or imput that is well beyond the 180,000 roll level. While 30 years is a very long time, the 180,000 rolls might be considered too small a sample to provide a valid result for a Win Craps program.
Consider this fact: We know that the six point "fire bet" has been achieved numerous times, and the stated odds of successful completion by the Wizard is about 6100 to 1. Yet the 244/495 HA equation has never been documented to be completed anytime or anywhere, and the Wizard's Administrator pegged those odds at only 28 to 1. For me, without a real and actual longetudinal research study, I have some real difficulty in embrassing his formula or his odds. tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymThe House only a 12% edge?? My slot experiences are really in the toilet at say about 90% HA.
FleaStiff where is the closed quotation marks on the Keynes writing?? It is quite prophetic and exactly right, but do not let GoatCabin and some others see it for their passion is the knit-picking of the "26 cents" that the House "skims" from some of the craps bets. Thanks for the quote, man I love it!!!
tuttigym
I've not visited this thread for a long time, perhaps because I've never understood it.
I'm glad you loved that quote, though puzzled as to why.
>FleaStiff where is the closed quotation marks on the Keynes writing??
I believe that the quotation is simply: The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run, we are all dead.
Of course the rejoinder is often: In the long run, Keynes is dead. At the very least, that has been an apt rejoinder since 1946.
>the knit-picking of the "26 cents" that the House "skims" from some of the craps bets.
Nope. Actually my reference to 26 cents versus five dollars is a reference to the 5.26 percent house edge on roulette bets. So that someone making an even money wager on Black or Red has a short term focus of does he win five dollars or lose five dollars, but the green eye shade types don't even see the five dollar chip, they see 26 cents because that winning bettor "should" receive a 5.26 payout if there were no house edge. In effect, the casino lets one person wager five dollars on Black and lets another person wager five dollars on Red. The casino thus takes the losers money and gives it to the winner but taking a theoretical 26 cents by putting those green slots on the wheel that eventually will let the house take both of those Black and Red bets.
Lunacy tag? I knew that eventually my posts would cause someone to make a profound comment!
The 26 cent explanation is very good, however, as you know, the vast majority of players could care less simply because they are only concerned with winning and losing.
But try this one which is a truly hidden House "skim" because the prevailing wisdom is that the FO bets take away "all HA." What is the return (payout or per cent - use a $300 FO bet) on a FO bet on the 5 or 9 point? What are the actual (per cent) True Odds return on a 5 or 9? What, if any, is the House "skim"?
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymFleaStiff: ...the prevailing wisdom is that the FO bets take away "all HA."
as I said in the other post, it is possible to reduce the HE but not the EV. I've come to look at it that way.
>the vast majority of players ... are only concerned with winning and losing.
That's for sure! The players take a short term view, the house takes a long term view... but watches that next spin very carefully anyway.
>What, if any, is the House "skim"?
Maybe its a question of terminology, but if its a Free Odds bet... there is NO house edge and NO player edge. You each start out holding the stick in the exact middle. Neither of you has the short end of the stick if its a Free Odds bet. And it don't matter none what the point number is at the time. And it don't matter none 'bout breakage either. The odds bet is a way for the casino to either munch through your bankroll faster or for you to munch through the casino's money trough faster, depending upon which of you is luckier. There ain't no edge. (And skim means something else anyway).
Quote: Wizard Administrator3.5848%, or approximately one "chunk" of 495 Pass Line resolutions out of 28 "chunks" of 495 Pass Line resolutions.
The exact formula is: 495!/(244! × 251!) × (244/495)244 × (251/495)251
My original question was asked on Feb 12, 2010. I am quite confident that this odds question was never asked before. It took the "Administrator" only about a day to come up with the most bogus formula (above). I shall be specific:
The 1.41% HA on PL outcomes requires only SEVEN LOSSES in 495 outcomes. That means that the minimum number of shooters (7) MUST make 34.85 PASSES IN A ROW W/O a natural craps loser during the shooting tenure before the shooter experiences a 7 out. If the Wizard is to be believed on his previous posts regarding the odds of point conversions, the real odds of making the almost 35 passes in a row seven CONSECUTIVE times (shooters) is in the BILLIONS OR MORE.
Administrator, you have no longitudinal studies or empirical evidence that the above calculations are anywheres near accurate especially in light of the six point fire bet odds of 6100 to 1. And that is why the rule of 495 HAS NEVER BEEN DOCUMENTED to ever have been SUCCESSFULLY been completed.
tuttigym
I also can't believe that anyone, including myself, continues to respond.
Sigh...
No it doesn't.Quote: tuttigymThe 1.41% HA on PL outcomes requires only SEVEN LOSSES in 495 outcomes.
It means that in 495 outcomes, there are seven MORE losses than wins.
Duh:
251 + 244 = 495
251 - 244 = 7
Quote: DJTBIt means that in 495 outcomes, there are seven MORE losses than wins.
Duh:
251 + 244 = 495
251 - 244 = 7
Really? So suppose you show everyone how any shooter(s) can have only seven MORE losses than wins in any given 495 PL outcomes. Duh!!!
tuttigym
Suppose you take your hear out of the sand, or out of whatever orifice it's located in, and read some of the posts in this thread.
I'll summarize for you.
Take my statement above, and add phrases such as "statistically," "on average," "about," "million," and "probability."
Heck, I'll do it for you, since I don't know if it will make it into your little brain:
Statistically, in 495million PL outcomes, you will get, on average, about 244million wins and about 251million losses.
When you're done thinking about that, you might want to take a course in probability and statistics. Or at lease find a math teacher and buy him a cup of coffee to have him explain it to you.
I think you people are going back and forth with this "next roll" versus "In the longrun, we are all dead" stuff. No one has said that if you take some 495 PassLine bets there will be exactly a certain result. No one would run a casino and no one would play in a casino if that were true.Quote: tuttigymReally? So suppose you show everyone how any shooter(s) can have only seven MORE losses than wins in any given 495 PL outcomes.
Quote: DJTBStatistically, in 495million PL outcomes, you will get, on average, about 244million wins and about 251million losses.
So what you are saying here is that JB's (Wizard Administrator} formula, which proports to show ONLY a 28 to 1 odds of occurance, is truly dinosaur dump, and the world has to go through "495 million PL outcomes" for it to actually happen, right??? You still have not told the members here exactly HOW a given number of shooters would have ONLY seven losses in any set of 495 PL outcomes, i.e, the actual breakdown of just ONE successful 244/251 ratio.
Obviously your nova sized brain will be able to explain that scenario in 5th grade language for us all to grasp regardless of where ones head might be placed at any given moment. As far as "probability and statistics," mega-millions of outcomes does not even come close to "statistical probabilities" or "on average" or "about" or even "long term." Perhaps you can wait several lifetimes, but most of us can not, so it would behoove you to show us all how it can be done and end this mathematical fantasy so I can provide all with an apology.
tuttigym
Quote: FleaStiffI think you people are going back and forth with this "next roll" versus "In the longrun, we are all dead" stuff. No one has said that if you take some 495 PassLine bets there will be exactly a certain result. No one would run a casino and no one would play in a casino if that were true.
Unfortuntely FS every craps book, "pundit," "expert," math guru, the WIZARD, and his administrator point to the HA of 1.41% on PL outcomes as being true and accurate and inferring that somehow this happens all or most of the time using the 244/251 ratio. The administrator took all of 24 -48 hours to deliver to all a math formula showing that it is a 28 to 1 shot. I stated that his formula was bison bisquits because there is absolutely NO foundation, reseach, or empirical evidence to substantiate its accuracy. Yet most, if not all, seem to accept it without reseveration or challenge. Do you accept the odds of 12,500 to 1 of any given golfer making a hole in one??
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymUnfortuntely FS every craps book, "pundit," "expert," math guru, the WIZARD, and his administrator point to the HA of 1.41% on PL outcomes as being true and accurate and inferring that somehow this happens all or most of the time using the 244/251 ratio. The administrator took all of 24 -48 hours to deliver to all a math formula showing that it is a 28 to 1 shot. I stated that his formula was bison bisquits because there is absolutely NO foundation, reseach, or empirical evidence to substantiate its accuracy. Yet most, if not all, seem to accept it without reseveration or challenge. Do you accept the odds of 12,500 to 1 of any given golfer making a hole in one??
tuttigym
I don't play craps, so I've never really paid attention to this thread. It's kind of disappointing to see that your problem isn't with craps odds so much as the study of statistics as a whole...
No.Quote: tuttigymSo what you are saying here is ...
I am not saying any of the things you think I am saying.
I am saying that either you are an idiot, or you simply love to argue points to death while ignoring the very point that you are arguing. Personally, I think it's the former. (Hmmm.... I wonder if 'Former' understood in typical 5th grade vocabulary...)
Let me make this as simple as I can, in the 5th grade language that you requested:
If you flip a coin, what's the odds that it will land heads up?
Did you say 50%? OK, answer this:
If you flip a coin ten times, how much will you bet that it will land heads up exactly five times?
Quote: rdw4potusI don't play craps, so I've never really paid attention to this thread. It's kind of disappointing to see that your problem isn't with craps odds so much as the study of statistics as a whole...
Finally the poster with the real answer. Tutti - Frutti has the problem with the mathematical study of statistics. And the previous poster merely feeds him another statistics question, not gonna work with the fruitcake. Why don't we let him "win" the argument, the world is flat, and lock down the thread. Nothing more can really be said.
DeMango: You're absolutely right.Quote: DeMangoFinally the poster with the real answer.Quote: rdw4potusI don't play craps, so I've never really paid attention to this thread. It's kind of disappointing to see that your problem isn't with craps odds so much as the study of statistics as a whole...
rdw4potus: Sorry I didn't comment on your post sooner. You hit the nail on the head, and did it quite succinctly at that.
Yeah, but there was a point where I thought that Tutti "got it". So I was thinking that simple coin flip question will help him get it.Quote: DeMangoAnd the previous poster merely feeds him another statistics question, not gonna work with the fruitcake.
Maybe I'm the idiot for even bothering to try to get him to see the light.
It's hard to see the light when you have your head ... where the sun don't shine.
I believe this thread is the definition of insanity. Every new poster thinks he can finally get through the many inches of tutti's melon to get to whatever is residing inside and make him understand. Its like an American trying to talk to a foreigner, and somehow thinking they foreigner will understand English if they just talk a little slower. It ain't gonna happen.
Because Tutti revived it.Quote: ruascottWhy are people still responding to this thing???? I thought it had finally been deep-sixed for good.....
Isn't "and louder" part of that joke? But in Tutti's case, "Slower" is the operative word.Quote: ruascott...and somehow thinking the foreigner will understand English if they just talk a little slower.
Quote: DJTeddyBearBecause Tutti revived it.
Isn't "and louder" part of that joke? But in Tutti's case, "Slower" is the operative word.
Haha...yes. LOUDER and slloooooooooower!!
The above poster finally hit it right though. Tutti doesn't have a problem with craps, specifically, but with the overall study of statistics. This is like trying to teach evolution to a religious fundamentalist.
Quote: DJTeddyBear
Did you say 50%? OK, answer this:
If you flip a coin ten times, how much will you bet that it will land heads up exactly five times?
10!/5!/5! * (1/2)^10 = .2461
1 - .2461 = .7539
.7539/.2461 = 3.0635:1
so its a little more than 3:1 against rolling exactly 5 heads in 10 flips
Quote: rudeboyoi10!/5!/5! * (1/2)^10 = .2461
1 - .2461 = .7539
.7539/.2461 = 3.0635:1
so its a little more than 3:1 against rolling exactly 5 heads in 10 flips
Can you annotate that with text?
where n = 10 and k = 5 and n-k = 5
the exclamation mark works like this for 10 choose 5
(10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1)/((5x4x3x2x1)(5x4x3x2x1))
so whatever that number is.
theres that number of combinations to have 5wins in 10flips.
probability of winning is (1/2)
probability of losing is (1/2)
so the probability of winning 5 flips and losing 5flips is (1/2)^5*(1/2)^5
now you take the number of ways to have 5wins in 10flips and multiply it by that probability.
which ends up being .2461
so you have a .2461 chance of flipping exactly 5 heads in 5 flips
and a .7539 chance of flipping any other number of heads
so the odds you need would be probability(losing) to probability(winning)
which comes out to 3.0635:1
Quote: DJTBIf you flip a coin ten times, how much will you bet that it will land heads up exactly five times?
Your second grade math and logic seem to equate a problem with a common denominator of 2 to a problem with a common denominator of 495.
The coin flip results are completed every time and every attempt completes the exercise. The 1.41% HA on PL outcomes takes 495 attempts and has never been documented as a complete and SUCCESSFUL exercise.
It should be obvious to all that you could not come up with a reasonable answer, so you would have to change the parameters or the rules or change the subject to level the field in your favor.
Your childish writings continue by lashing out insults at me that have no effect as I consider the source.
So let me help you out by offering an answer to the question:
244 consecutive shooters and each one has one PL winner and one PL loser. The next seven shooters all have PL losers. Can you accept that premise and if so, what are the odds of that exact scenario happening??
122 consecutive shooters and each one has two PL winners, one come out craps loser and one 7 out. The next seven shooters have 7 PL losers. Can you accept this premise, and what of the odds of occurance??
I could go on and on, but you know what, it has never been documented to have happened.
I believe the above is at the first grade level and you could not come up with any of it.
tuttigym
Quote: ruascottThe above poster finally hit it right though. Tutti doesn't have a problem with craps, specifically, but with the overall study of statistics. This is like trying to teach evolution to a religious fundamentalist.
The 1.41% HA on PL outcomes are the accepted ODDS posted in every craps tutorial. However ru, there are NO statistics to back it up. So I guess you are a religious fundamentalist, right??
tuttigym
Quote: rdw4potusI don't play craps, so I've never really paid attention to this thread. It's kind of disappointing to see that your problem isn't with craps odds so much as the study of statistics as a whole...
This whole thread is about ODDS. There have been no representations of valid statistics that equate to the ODDS of success of 1.41% HA on PL outcomes.
So why not produce for us a way to conduct a VALID experiment that would collect data to prove the hypothesis without the use of any computer program such as Smartcraps, i.e, a hands-on collection of raw data which then would be converted to statistical results???
Probably not realistic because it would take sooo much time, effort, and manpower.
tuttigym
Quote: DeFruit
Finally the poster with the real answer. Tutti - Frutti has the problem with the mathematical study of statistics. And the previous poster merely feeds him another statistics question, not gonna work with the fruitcake. Why don't we let him "win" the argument, the world is flat, and lock down the thread. Nothing more can really be said.
You need to show us all what statistics you are referring to. As an intellectual sharpshooter who resorts to name calling, show us all your very brightest side. Why not prove that you are not a dunce.
tuttigym
its really hard to get EXACTLY 244 wins and 251 losses.
but thats what it averages out to.
to figure out getting exactly 244 wins and 251 losses
you take 495 choose 244 =3.4899E+147
then you do p(winning)^244 * p(losing)^251 or (.49295)^244*(.50705)^251 = 1.0272E-149
now multiply 3.4899E+147 and 1.0272E-149 together and you end up with
0.035847701 or 3.58% chance of getting EXACTLY 244 wins over 495 trials.
which is about 28:1 as stated earlier in this thread.
And that's my point with my coin flip analogy.Quote: rudeboyoiwhat you dont understand is that 251 losses and 244 wins is an AVERAGE over 495 trials.
its really hard to get EXACTLY 251 wins and 244 losses.
Probability dictates that that in ten flips of a coin, on average you'll get five heads and five tails.
In reality, less than half the time will you get exactly five and five.
But change it to a thousand flips, and the total will be very close to 50%. Heck, there's a chance that it will be exactly 50%.
Similarly, in 495 PL outcomes, rarely will there be exactly 251 wins and 244 losses.
But the more PL outcomes that are added to the sample, the closer to the 1.41% average you'll be.
The game that was played to conduct the experiment was craps.
I placed $5 on the Pass Line. Shooter rolled a 7. I collected the original $5 wager and the $5 of winning amount.
From this experiment, I am able to completely 100% accurately verify that the Player Advantage in this games is 100%. Therefore, the House Advantage is 0%.
Quote: tuttigymYou need to show us all what statistics you are referring to. As an intellectual sharpshooter who resorts to name calling, show us all your very brightest side. Why not prove that you are not a dunce.
tuttigym
Tutti-Frutti!
Good news for you have I! There are accumulations of dice results readily available that have results in line with expectations. Real results from real casinos. Available at your local gambling bookstore! Who's the dunce now?? Hint it's not us!
Quote: tuttigymYou need to show us all what statistics you are referring to. As an intellectual sharpshooter who resorts to name calling, show us all your very brightest side. Why not prove that you are not a dunce.
tuttigym
Tutti-Frutti!
Good news for you have I! There are accumulations of dice results readily available that have results in line with expectations. Real results from real casinos. Available at your local gambling bookstore! Who's the dunce now?? Hint it's not us!
I think I know Tutti's answer:Quote: konceptumThe following experiment took place last weekend. The experimenter was myself, and I also had my girlfriend present as a witness. All rolls were completely documented for complete accuracy.
If you didn't have someone from PricewaterhouseCoopers there to audit and document it, it doesn't count.
Then again, here's a 2007 article that asks, Can PricewaterhouseCoopers be trusted to count the Academy Awards ballots?
http://www.slate.com/id/2160074
Quote: tuttigymThis whole thread is about ODDS. There have been no representations of valid statistics that equate to the ODDS of success of 1.41% HA on PL outcomes.
So why not produce for us a way to conduct a VALID experiment that would collect data to prove the hypothesis without the use of any computer program such as Smartcraps, i.e, a hands-on collection of raw data which then would be converted to statistical results???
Probably not realistic because it would take sooo much time, effort, and manpower.
tuttigym
WTF??? Seriously you think a computer cannot accurately simulate a real, "hands-on" experiment? Are you really that freaking naive? We probably never landed on the moon either, right? Since you couldn't see it with your own eyes...geesh....
"a hands-on collection of raw data which then would be converted to statistical results???"
YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT STATISTICS IS. It is not a compilation of millions of trials where one just adds up the results. That is addition/subtraction, which is appearantly as far in math class as you made it.
Quote: DJTeddyBearIf you didn't have someone from PricewaterhouseCoopers there to audit and document it, it doesn't count.
Having been an auditor, and having been audited being an accountant for large corporations and also for my small business, I can tell you this much: auditors are fairly well meaningless.
Don't get me wrong, they do serve a point. Unfortunately, if someone wants something to be hidden, it's not all that difficult to do so.
Auditors mainly look at the processes that you use. As long as your documented and actual processes fall in line with what needs to be done, you can usually pass an audit with no problems.
They will then usually do a "spot check" on various documents to make sure you actually follow the processes you claim to follow, but again, this can be manipulated to show what you want.
*sigh* I spent way too much time in accounting. Gambling is way more fun.
Quote: konceptumOh man, I hope she doesn't find this forum.
You don't want her to know you're an accountant? That'd end it, right?;-)
Quote: rudeboyoiwhat you dont understand is that 251 losses and 244 wins is an AVERAGE over 495 trials.
Averages are derived from data of past events not from odds. Your math gymnastics do not reflect anything that has occured or been documented as true. Unless there is actual collected data of random tosses of sufficient size, your calculations are just speculations. While your formulas are quite impressive to look at, they are just so much giberish because there is NO real statistical data to back it up. the same can be said for JB's dinosaur dump previously posted.
Odds do not make averages, however, there are numerous cases where averages can either reflect odds or even make the odds. Specifically: Tiger Woods stroke average in majors is approximately one stroke per round lower than any other player, therefore, the oddsmakers tend to make him the odds on favorite to win any given major. Even though he has played poorly most recently, he was still a small favorite to win the US Open this last time before the tournament started all based on his stroke average and the fact that he had won at Pebble before.
Averages on home teams winning, in general, usually place the odds in favor of the home team regardless of the sport unless that home team is not playing at home such as in a bowl game or neutral site championship. Sporting event odds are posted based on past performances along with other tangibles.
As far as the 1.41% HA odds on PL bets goes, there are NO averages there is only that fraction of 244/251 based solely on the total number of possible ways of PL outcomes one time each.
tuttigym
Quote: konceptumI placed $5 on the Pass Line. Shooter rolled a 7. I collected the original $5 wager and the $5 of winning amount.
From this experiment, I am able to completely 100% accurately verify that the Player Advantage in this games is 100%. Therefore, the House Advantage is 0%.
I love it!! For the first time anywhere proof positive that the 1.41% HA on PL outcomes is a LIE!!!
WAY TO GO!!! This should shut those other naysayers down.
tuttigym
Quote: DeFruitGood news for you have I! There are accumulations of dice results readily available that have results in line with expectations. Real results from real casinos. Available at your local gambling bookstore! Who's the dunce now?? Hint it's not us!
Is the book title a secret? We don't have gambling bookstores where I live. Are those results on-line and easily accessable? Perhaps you could provide us with a link? If your answer leaves doubts because it is incomplete, you still get to wear the cone.
tuttigym
Quote: DJTBIf you didn't have someone from PricewaterhouseCoopers there to audit and document it, it doesn't count.
Then again, here's a 2007 article that asks, Can PricewaterhouseCoopers be trusted to count the Academy Awards ballots?
http://www.slate.com/id/2160074
No no, I trust konceptum's experiment. It is beyond accurate and proves beyond any doubt that the conventional wisdom is absolutely wrong.
DJ You have a wonderful sense of humor even with the barbs and jabs.
tuttigym
Quote: ruascottWTF??? Seriously you think a computer cannot accurately simulate a real, "hands-on" experiment? Are you really that freaking naive? We probably never landed on the moon either, right? Since you couldn't see it with your own eyes...geesh....
There is lots of stuff that computers cannot do simply because humans have to program them. There is no artificial intelligence that can do random simply because it IS random. Craps is random.
Computers cannot cure cancer even if they are programmed with every chemical compound known. Computers cannot tell you how to bet and win even close to 100% because of randomness and other factors known and unknown. So yes, bring a computer with you into a casino and use it to wager yourself into Obama's welfare collective.
Again, STATISTICS are always based on past events which are then used to draw conclusions, and they CAN BE MANIPULATED with one exception -- konceptum's experiment above.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymThere is lots of stuff that computers cannot do simply because humans have to program them. There is no artificial intelligence that can do random simply because it IS random. Craps is random.
Computers cannot cure cancer even if they are programmed with every chemical compound known. Computers cannot tell you how to bet and win even close to 100% because of randomness and other factors known and unknown. So yes, bring a computer with you into a casino and use it to wager yourself into Obama's welfare collective.
Again, STATISTICS are always based on past events which are then used to draw conclusions, and they CAN BE MANIPULATED with one exception -- konceptum's experiment above.
tuttigym
So you seriously believe a computer cannot randomly generate a two dice combination just the same as physically throwing 2 dice? I suppose then that slot machines are some type of hoax too, as they can't possibly really do random number generation. The ignorance in your posts continually blows me away, but it is entertaining.
One roll has meaning when its your money. When its a theoretical discussion about the long term one roll has less meaning.
The 1.414 math is correct and it can be proven to be so if you spend the rest of your life at a craps table OR the rest of your life posting to this thread. I plan to do neither.
