The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Just Chat ! / Re: Is this maths correct?
« Last post by chiralSPO on Today at 20:12:31 »
Box, it sounds like you have played some online poker and lost. Then it sounds like you complained to the administrators, who sent you a very long, very detailed, and very awesome message. I would not recommend that you continue your argument with them (I might also recommend you stop playing online poker, but that is entirely up to you  :))

These guys spent a lot of time making sure their algorithms are fair, and you are not going to prove otherwise with your current level of mathematical prowess.
2
Just Chat ! / Re: Is this maths correct?
« Last post by Thebox on Today at 19:51:29 »
1. A bad workman blames his tools.timing is not a tool

2. In poker, you are playing against a whole lot of other people.yes

3. In online poker you don't know who they are.yes

4. The casino is not a charitypoker is not the same as a casino game,

5. Each hand is winner-takes-allnot really ,

6. Very good players can win money in the long termcrap players win money online

7. Therefore anyone who is less than very good is likely to lose money.not true

See? No complicated maths required!untrue

The relevant part.

''As I write this, there are more than 25,000 tables in
action, and each of them requires a new, shuffled deck of cards
foe every hand it deals.  Each table requires a deck more than
once per minute, on average.  It makes no sense to have the cards
shuffled at each table.  That would require tens of thousands of
individual shuffle servers, which is just silly.
 
Instead, there are servers that do nothing but shuffle decks of
cards.  They have no idea how those cards will be used, they just
shuffle decks and line them up.
  When your table needs a deck, it
pings the server, and the next deck in line is delivered to that
table. ''

y≠x

123
231
213



3
New Theories / Are we constantly shifting dimensions?
« Last post by Expectant_Philosopher on Today at 18:32:35 »
Have you ever noticed some small thing you were certain of was different?  Is it just a fluke of memory? Or if we are a hundred percent certain, could it be that we shifted into an alternate dimension and didn't even realize we had, the other dimension being so like our own except for the one thing that was different?  Could we be shifting arbitrarily between these alternate realities?  This plays somewhat into the idea of intention, and whether intention doesn't really change the world, but is the mechanism or sense to allow us to shift to that other dimension.  Do we shift to that other place because that place has the prize we have been seeking, and our intention sniffs it out, and draws us into the alternate reality. The only problem is the law of unintended consequences.  If you shift into another reality what do you leave behind?  Maybe people don't really die they just become separated from those they knew, entering the other reality.
4
Just Chat ! / Re: Is this maths correct?
« Last post by alancalverd on Today at 18:23:42 »
1. A bad workman blames his tools.

2. In poker, you are playing against a whole lot of other people.

3. In online poker you don't know who they are.

4. The casino is not a charity

5. Each hand is winner-takes-all

6. Very good players can win money in the long term

7. Therefore anyone who is less than very good is likely to lose money.

See? No complicated maths required!
5
Physiology & Medicine / heat wave survival strategy for seniors.
« Last post by Pecos_Bill on Today at 18:17:25 »
The news says that Europe is enduring a heat wave. BBC says that Brighton is sweltering at 35 degrees. Where I live it is 33 degrees today with 55 % humidity, and the house is comfortable with the windows open and a fan blowing. One wonders if English people are genetically distinct from American hybrids like me (with a dash of Chocktaw) or if Noel Coward was correct when he said that mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noonday sun.

Be that as it may, here are a couple of survival strategies for the elderly - who are endangered by hot weather.
(a,) spend the day at the library.
(B.) Sit in front of the fan mother naked except for a wet sheet.
(c.) Get some frozen peas out of the fridge, wrap them in a pillowcase and stick them in your armpits and groin.
(d.) If you know an elderly person, check on them. If people aren't used to heat they can cope with it in a bizarre fashion. When an unusual heat wave hit Chicago, some elderly people closed up their windows "to keep the heat out" and Chicago ran out of morgue space. People in the southern boondocks would never imagine doing that.


Keep your stick on the ice. I'm pulling for you.
6
Just Chat ! / Re: Is this maths correct?
« Last post by Thebox on Today at 16:41:06 »
And here is what my argument is about.

''Where a deck of cards is shuffled has absolutely no bearing as to
whether it is shuffled randomly or not.  As we have explained to
your repeatedly, the cards are shuffled randomly.  They *are*
dealt to your table alone, in order, without being altered in any
way.  As I write this, there are more than 25,000 tables in
action, and each of them requires a new, shuffled deck of cards
foe every hand it deals.  Each table requires a deck more than
once per minute, on average.  It makes no sense to have the cards
shuffled at each table.  That would require tens of thousands of
individual shuffle servers, which is just silly.
 
Instead, there are servers that do nothing but shuffle decks of
cards.  They have no idea how those cards will be used, they just
shuffle decks and line them up.  When your table needs a deck, it
pings the server, and the next deck in line is delivered to that
table.  The cards are then dealt in order.  There is no such
thing as a "cool deck"; every deck is shuffled randomly, so it is
a fair deck.  It cannot *possibly* favor any particular player. 
NOTHING is ever done to alter the decks -- they are simply dealt
in order, fairly.
 
The "user input" we refer to is not done at your table and does
not result in "control" of the hands.  It is a steady stream of
data which is used as one part of the shuffling process.  No
*individual* alters the dealing.  NOBODY can alter the dealing. 
The user input is the entire mass of data coming in from every
single ''edited out name of company'' user in the world, all at once.  Understand
that your ''edited out name of company'' table is a representation.  As far as the
client and our server are concerned, your table is just a grid of
numbers.  When you move your mouse or click a button, it is
transmitting pairs of numbers to our server which represent the
location you are clicking on.  For example, a "Fold" might be
something like 28,604x58,789 -- two *large* numbers which
represent a location.  Right now, as I am writing this, there are
more than 160,000 players on our site, and *every one of them* is
transmitting a string of these pairs of numbers to our server --
that's how it knows what you want to do.
 
That *MASSIVE* amount of information is turned into an even more
*MASSIVE* strings of binary data, which is *one* of the sources
of data which our shuffle servers use to shuffle decks of cards. 
That string of data has no *meaning* whatsoever.  If you move
your mouse left or right, or click a slightly different spot,
that string of data does *change*, but it doesn't influence the
dealing in any particular way.  There is no specific control. 
Even if you *wanted* to somehow influence the dealing, you would
need to know what every single poker player on ''edited out name of company'', in
every part of the world, is doing at that moment, *AND* you would
have to know how every single bit of that data will be used,
which is *impossible* to know.
 
Furthermore, that string of binary data is combined with another
string of complete random binary data which comes from the
Quantis Random Number Generator, as described to you already and
linked to on our website.  Between those two completely
unpredictable sources, a *massive* number of randomly shuffled
decks of cards are generated every single day -- many tens of
millions of them.
 
Yes, it could be argued that you moving your mouse a millimeter
to the left somehow *changed* something.  But there is absolutely
no way to know *HOW* it changed anything.  You don't know the
algorithms used to shuffle, or how the two sources of data are
intertwined, or anything else about that change.  You don't even
know the pairs of numbers *you* are generating.  It's all
completely impenetrable.  That's the most basic quality of
randomness -- it's unpredictable.
 
The truth is, the shuffling on''edited out name of company''  is likely *MORE* random
than the shuffling of a deck of cards at a live poker table. 
That's because the dealers at a live table have a good shuffle
method (scramble, shuffle, cut, shuffle, box, shuffle, cut), but
it's not perfect.  It's *POSSIBLE* to track visible cards through
that shuffle.  It's *POSSIBLE* for a shuffling expert to
manipulate that shufflie.  It's *POSSIBLE* that the dealer will
flash a couple of cards when he's shuffling or cutting.  Or it
will "waffle" while it's being pitched across the table.  It's
*POSSIBLE* that some player will get an advantage via such dealer
error.  It's *POSSIBLE* that the cards are marked.  *Usually*
nobody knows what's coming, or any of the cards, but I don't know
any casino player who has not seen a flashed card, or experienced
a mis-deal.  On PokerStars, that *NEVER* happens.  You *NEVER*
know what's coming, and cards are *NEVER* flashed.  It really is
a completely random deal.''
 
User input is not a "terrible flaw" in our dealing, it's an
*extra* bit of random, unpredictable information.  This is used
*along with* another random source.  This methodology has been
inspected and approved by Cigital, a company whose job is it to
analyze such things.  The *results* of this method of shuffling
and dealing have also been analyzed by countless people for more
than *eleven years* now, and not one person has ever found
anything wrong.  The math in our games *is* correct.  That's not
a matter of opinion, it's a *fact* and it's completely
verifiable.  That's the whole power of hand histories -- you
don't have to have beliefs about the dealing, you can actually
check the results.
 
As to your claim that "the math is not working out" for you, you
talk about checking your stats.  Have you actually done this
math?  How did you gather your raw data?  What stats have you
checked?  How did you do this calculation?  What software did you
use?  How big is your sample?  What method did you use to measure
the significance of your findings?  Please send us the details of
your findings.
 
Or is this all just observations?  Are you just frustrated with
losing, and venting that frustration?
 
Yes, you take bad beats when you play poker.  *Every* person who
plays poker takes bad beats.  But bad beats are *NOT* why you are
losing.  Even *if* it were true that you always bust out on bad
beats (which is *not* true) That wouldn't prove anything.  That's
how poker tournaments work -- you play and play and play until
you either make a mistake or take a bad beat.  It's the same for
everyone.  You just have to lose *ONE* hand and you're busted.
 
To win a big poker tournament you have to survive a dozen or more
all-in hands.  Even if you get your money in ahead every single
time, you're *still* a favorite to lose one of them.  For
example, if you get your money in as an 80% favorite (like pair
over pair) just *four* times, your odds of winning all four are
.8x.8x.8x.8 = .4096 -- you're a 2:3 *underdog* to win all of
them.  Yes, you remember the time you lose, but you *do* win
those contests 80% of the time.  And like I said, you have to win
*many* more than four to win an MTT.  Plus, sometimes you don't
get your money in as an 80% favorite -- sometimes it's a flip,
sometimes it's 60%, sometimes you're even an underdog.  You *DO*
win most of the time with your good hands, and when you do, you
just keep on playing.  *Every* all-in hand is an *opportunity* to
bust out.  Complaining about the ones you lose is just silly.  OF
COURSE you lost those hands -- that's why you busted out, and why
you remember it.
 
The last MTT you played here a few days ago had 4,501 players in
it.  If you're an average player, your odds of winning a
tournament that big are 4,500:1.  Those are *very* long odds. 
You did *NOT* bust out of that tournament on a bad beat -- you
busted out with a good hand, AKs, but you lost to a better hand
-- Aces.
 
In your entire history here, you've only played 643 MTTs with a
cash buy-in.  The *average* player count in those events is
3,996.  Yet you're upset that you haven't won one yet?  Even the
best poker player in the world would not be a favorite to win 1
of 643 tries in a tournament with almost 4,000 players.  You
cashed in 90 of them, which is 14% -- that's a normal amount,
since we usually pay 12-15% of the field.  Your results are
perfectly normal.
 
You don't lose every time you're ahead.  You win *and* lose
hands, just like everyone else does.  You've won a bunch of Sit &
Go's, which of course are easier to win because they have fewer
players in them.  When you win them, it's because you *don't*
take a bad beat on an all-in hand, or because *you* got lucky. 
The last heads-up S&G you won, just a few days ago, you won when
your opponent pushed all-in with King High, and you called with
Jacks and he *didn't* hit a King.  Your good hand *won*.  In the
one after that, you lost with KJ to AJ -- *not* a bad beat.  In
the 180-player S&G you played just before that, you busted out
when you called *two* pre-flop all-ins with 8-7 (Eight High!),
and lost to pocket Aces.  Obviously that's not a bad beat,
either.  The truth is, you only bust out of tournaments on bad
beats *sometimes*.  *Most* of the time, you bust out when you get
your money in behind.  You *don't* "lose to the bad beat always".
 
Attached to this email is a chart of *every* all-in hand you've
been involved in for the last month in tournaments.  Go through
it carefully.  Count the times you were ahead and the times you
were behind.  Count the wins *and* the losses.  What you will
find is that when you have the better hand, you *do* win most of
the time.  When you have the worse hand, you lose most of the
time.  You take some bad beats and you give some bad beats.  It's
all just normal poker.  You only have to glance at the "Was
Allin" column and the "Won" column to see the All-In hands where
you lost.  It's *obvious* that most of the time you did *not*
bust out on a bad beat.  Starting from the top:  AK vs AA, KJ vs
AJ, A9 vs 66, QJ va AT, 78 vs AA, Q9 vs A7, J7 va A5, T7 vs 89
(you started ahead but got the money in behind), AQ vs QT... 
Finally a true bad beat.  Like I said, *most* of the time you do
*not* bust out on a bad beat.  You are *not* losing because of
bad beats or some flaw in our dealing.  You're losing because
you're getting your money in as an underdog too often.
 
That's what real poker analysis is about -- checking the
percentages that hands win in similar situations.  It's not about
the painful beats.  Winning at poker is about recognizing the
mistakes that you make and correcting them.  It's *not* about
blaming the dealer because you took a few beats when you had a
good hand.
 
We are happy for you to make your "findings" public as long as
they are mathematically sound.  Your opinion that there is a flaw
in our dealing methodology is incorrect, and your assertions
about how you lose are inaccurate.  If you would like to do a
complete, unbiased analysis of your hands, we welcome it.  We
have 243,557 of your hands on file, and we will send them all to
you if you ask.  There are many software packages available
online which you can use to do a full analysis.  It is 100%
certain that if you go through *all* of your hands, you will find
that you have been treated completely fairly.  You have won and
lost according to the normal poker math percentages.  Here are
some of the hand analysis tools which are available online:
7
Just Chat ! / Re: Is this maths correct?
« Last post by Thebox on Today at 16:19:32 »
on a ratio of any given x, they individually have 4/52 of producing one of a set of 4 variants as the first card in the rows.   What is the chance of there being more or less than 4/52 in the columns aligned to players?

Before I answer this let me check what you are trying to do otherwise the answer will mislead you.

player 1 . please pick from the x axis,

player 2, please pick from the y axis,

For simplicity lets take a example you have given of 4 decks a b c d

a 132
b 123
c 132
d 321

Each player will receive 2 cards

Player 1 is going to use the x direction and is given deck a and draws 13

Player 2 is going to use the y direction chooses 2 decks b&c and hence draws 11

This seems a funny sort of game and I can't see how it relates to your real life game!

Note, these numbers do not relate to reality and player 2 could also have lost with a different distribution

EDIT:
Just to make sure I understand what you mean by using the y axis.
If we have 4 decks of cards:

y4   d   d  x
y3   d   d  x
y2   d   d  x
y1   d   d  x
     x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 etc ............ x52

If you want to use the y axis to deal 4 cards to a player, from x3 as shown, you would have to take decks y1.....y4 discard the top 2 cards from these packs =d and deal the cards x to the player.


Ok,

yes Y represents the individual sets of decks,

y1=deck 1
y2=deck 2

and so on.

expanding this


1 to 52 along the  x axis. 

123456789 and so on.

so in Y and x form it looks like this

123
123
123

I am sure you understand this part from your post.


Now we will add some players for our game, 3 players on the Y axis and 3 players along the x axis

y
p3 {1. 2.  3}
p2 {1 .2.  3}
p1 {1. 2. 3}
....p1 p2 p3


p1y gets to chooses a variant out of 3 random shuffled variants, number 2 is a winning number.

they have a 1/3 chance of guessing where the 2 is using the correct axis of x.


p1x also have to pick a variant, from the Y axis, they have 0/3 chance of guessing where the two is in this random formation of x making y.

So now consider poker using one deck,


and then consider the consequence of picking a random deck from the Y axis as my scenario clearly shows.

My chance of an ace suppose to be 4/52 following an x axis of a singular deck, my chance of an ace using the y axis is 0 to infinite.  Every time a deck is gone, a new one appears. It is infinite for as long as you play.

X and Y alignment is not the same as just x.

In saying pick a deck, the deck is randomly given to your table, after every hand, each table gets a new deck, timing of table hands deciding what deck you get out of the system.

y1
y2
y3
y4


would be equal to x if y1,y2,y3,y4, arrived at the same table. But by random distribution by time , it is possible to receive y1 then y4 , which just happen give you an ace, while some other poor unlucky player receives y2 and y3 which is a kick in the teethe in this instant.

Imagine a tournament

time=...


Now imagine a player having luck by timing


time=aaa..........aaa.........a.a...a....a....a................a...................a..........a..........a.a.a..a


a=ace


now imagine a player having bad timing luck

time=......................................................I stop here because they ran out of blinds and were forced to fold every hand because they was bad.













8
General Science / Re: Im trying to find an alternative to helium
« Last post by alancalverd on Today at 11:20:29 »
PS and of course if you are flying any sort of aircraft in and out (especially one large enough to carry the balloon, turbine, winch, gas bottles and crew) you may as well deliver a 100 kW diesel generator and let the locals run it off cooking oil or jet fuel - no aeronautical skill required. Or just use the APU of the plane.
9
Just Chat ! / Re: Is this maths correct?
« Last post by Colin2B on Today at 10:29:35 »
on a ratio of any given x, they individually have 4/52 of producing one of a set of 4 variants as the first card in the rows.   What is the chance of there being more or less than 4/52 in the columns aligned to players?

Before I answer this let me check what you are trying to do otherwise the answer will mislead you.

player 1 . please pick from the x axis,

player 2, please pick from the y axis,

For simplicity lets take a example you have given of 4 decks a b c d

a 132
b 123
c 132
d 321

Each player will receive 2 cards

Player 1 is going to use the x direction and is given deck a and draws 13

Player 2 is going to use the y direction chooses 2 decks b&c and hence draws 11

This seems a funny sort of game and I can't see how it relates to your real life game!

Note, these numbers do not relate to reality and player 2 could also have lost with a different distribution

EDIT:
Just to make sure I understand what you mean by using the y axis.
If we have 4 decks of cards:

y4   d   d  x
y3   d   d  x
y2   d   d  x
y1   d   d  x
     x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 etc ............ x52

If you want to use the y axis to deal 4 cards to a player, from x3 as shown, you would have to take decks y1.....y4 discard the top 2 cards from these packs =d and deal the cards x to the player.
10
Physiology & Medicine / Re: Are vaccinations necessary?
« Last post by Pecos_Bill on Today at 06:59:48 »
Under the glorious red, white, and blue banner of the California Republic (ten thousand years! ten thousand years!) Governor Jerry Brown has today signed into law retraction of the 'personal preference' exemption for child vaccination. You can no longer refuse to vaccinate your child because you feel like doing so - just like you can't defecate on the sidewalk or snort heroin. As usual a few counter revolutionary elements - especially those selling vaccine 'substitutes" - are trying to organize resistance to this attack on their right to own their children like a pair of shoes.

This abrupt change stems from the Disneyland measles outbreak among white people -- whereas measles has been regularly breaking out with about 20-30 cases of hispanics every few years heretofore.

When the white people get scared in California, they demonstrate remarkable perspicacity about the role of quacks and ex-playboy "playmates" in health policy.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF 2.0.8 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines