Canyonero
Canyonero
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 509
Joined: Nov 19, 2012
October 19th, 2015 at 4:26:25 AM permalink
I feel like I should be able to do this myself - turns out I am not:

A shooter in Craps has a probability of 20% of rolling a seven. In 100 (200, 300) rolls, what is the probability of that shooter to have rolled more sevens than a random shooter at 16.67%

Thanks a lot! Wouldn't mind learning how you calculated this as well...
RS
RS
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
October 19th, 2015 at 7:00:08 AM permalink
What?

Do you mean what's the chance a random shooter throwing 20% (or higher) sevens in X rolls?
Canyonero
Canyonero
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 509
Joined: Nov 19, 2012
October 19th, 2015 at 7:11:20 AM permalink
No, I would like to know how likley it would be for a DI shooter that can roll a 7 20% of the time to roll more 7s than a random shooter within 100 rolls.
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
  • Threads: 117
  • Posts: 6218
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
October 19th, 2015 at 7:31:10 AM permalink
I don't think there's an "easy" way of calculating this. The one way I can think of doing it is this:

Let F(n) be the probability of rolling exactly N 7s out of 100 with the 20% probability:
F(n) = (100)C(n) x (1/5)n x (1 - 1/5)100-n
where (100)C(n) is the number of combinations of n items out of 100
Let G(n) be the probability of rolling exactly N 7s out of 100 with the normal (1/6) probability:
F(n) = (100)C(n) x (1/6)n x (1 - 1/6)100-n

The probability of rolling more 7s in 100 rolls is:
F(0) x (G(1) + G(2) + G(3) + ... + G(100))
+ F(1) x (G(2) + G(3) + G(4) + ... + G(100))
+ F(2) x (G(3) + G(4) + G(5) + ... + G(100))
+ ...
+ F(98) x (G(99) + G(100))
+ F(99) x G(100)

This probably can be calculated easiest in an Excel spreadsheet.
Canyonero
Canyonero
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 509
Joined: Nov 19, 2012
October 19th, 2015 at 7:36:34 AM permalink
Thx Don, makes me feel a little better that it actually is complicated. In that caseI guess I will think of a less complicated wager.

Meet me in the SRR thread everybody :)
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
  • Threads: 117
  • Posts: 6218
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
October 19th, 2015 at 7:54:39 AM permalink
I get 69.81% after 100 rolls, 78.76% after 200 rolls, and 84.23% after 300 rolls
Canyonero
Canyonero
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 509
Joined: Nov 19, 2012
October 19th, 2015 at 8:01:53 AM permalink
Cool, thanks again Don! That is less likely than I would have assumed.

I guess that goes to show how difficult DI were to prove if it were real. Even after 300 rolls, there is a reasonable chance the random shooter would still come out on top.
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
October 19th, 2015 at 8:04:11 AM permalink
You can use the binomial distribution to get probabilities of each occurrence and then multiply probabilities.

So, populate a table in excel:

Probability
Rolls 100
Prob 0.166666667 0.2
0 1.20747E-08 2.03704E-10 1.20747E-08
1 2.41493E-07 5.09259E-09 2.41493E-07
2 2.39079E-06 6.30208E-08 2.39079E-06
=a6+1

Column B = BINOMDIST($A4|$B$2|B$3|FALSE)
Column C = BINOMDIST($A4|$B$2|C$3|FALSE)
Column D = B4*SUM(C5:$C$...) -- the probability of outcome 1 (shooter with 1/6th probability of rolling a 7) x the probability of rolling more 7s than the column 1 (probability is the sum of all results in column C > #7s in column B).

Then sum up column D to get 69.81% on 100 rolls, 78.77% on 200 rolls, 84.23% on 300 rolls, 87.98% on 400 rolls, 90.70% on 500 rolls

You don't get to 2 sigma until about 800 rolls which explains why it is very difficult to tell if one shooter is actually better than another in real world conditions.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
Canyonero
Canyonero
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 509
Joined: Nov 19, 2012
October 19th, 2015 at 9:59:16 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

You can use the binomial distribution to get probabilities of each occurrence and then multiply probabilities.

So, populate a table in excel:

Probability
Rolls 100
Prob 0.166666667 0.2
0 1.20747E-08 2.03704E-10 1.20747E-08
1 2.41493E-07 5.09259E-09 2.41493E-07
2 2.39079E-06 6.30208E-08 2.39079E-06
=a6+1

Column B = BINOMDIST($A4|$B$2|B$3|FALSE)
Column C = BINOMDIST($A4|$B$2|C$3|FALSE)
Column D = B4*SUM(C5:$C$...) -- the probability of outcome 1 (shooter with 1/6th probability of rolling a 7) x the probability of rolling more 7s than the column 1 (probability is the sum of all results in column C > #7s in column B).

Then sum up column D to get 69.81% on 100 rolls, 78.77% on 200 rolls, 84.23% on 300 rolls, 87.98% on 400 rolls, 90.70% on 500 rolls

You don't get to 2 sigma until about 800 rolls which explains why it is very difficult to tell if one shooter is actually better than another in real world conditions.



Thanks! I learned something today...
PeeMcGee
PeeMcGee
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 115
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
October 19th, 2015 at 1:11:04 PM permalink
You could get an approximation that is a little less computational.

If we let A be a normal distributed random variable for the number of sevens rolled by the 0.2 shooter and let B be the variable for the 0.1667 shooter then…

A ~ N(mean = n/5, var = (1/5)(4/5)n = 4n/25)
B ~ N(mean = n/6, var = (1/6)(5/6)n = 5n/36)

Where n is the number of rolls

Then we can say C = A – B. Therefore,
C ~ N(mean = n/30, var = 269n/900)

We want to know the probability that C is greater than 0.5. So we can find a Z-score (sigma) by taking the mean minus 0.5 and then dividing it by the standard deviation (or var^0.5). So therefore…

Sigma = (n-15) / (269n)^0.5

You can look up the sigmas…or use Excel to get the probabilities by using:
=NORMSDIST(sigma)

And again, it’s just approximation. The higher the n the better the approximation.
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
October 19th, 2015 at 2:00:27 PM permalink
Quote: PeeMcGee

You could get an approximation that is a little less computational.

...
And again, it’s just approximation. The higher the n the better the approximation.



Cool. I wonder if there's some magical formula that the Wizard can come up that's exact and better than both. Since these are in a series, I am thinking the answer might be "Yes".
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
  • Jump to: