| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:15 pm Post subject: random "events" or not? |
 |
|
There seems to be two schools of thought as to if dice "trends" dictate
the future (i.e. hot/cold tables). The majority holds they
do. Yet, the law of random probability says that preceeding events
have no effect on suceeding events. Any thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ACDOC
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: random |
|
|
| Don't forget Dice Influencers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cymbal Man Freq.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 8:15 pm Post subject: Re: random |
|
|
95% of the bettors are optimistic that a 7-out won't occur on the next roll.
83.33% of the time, they will not be disappointed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mason
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:45 am Post subject: Re: random "events" or not? |
|
|
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Quote: | There seems to be two schools of thought as to if dice "trends" dictate
the future (i.e. hot/cold tables). The majority holds they
do. Yet, the law of random probability says that preceeding events
have no effect on suceeding events. Any thoughts?
|
There is no objective, independently confirmable evidence of predictive trends
of the rolls of dice at the crap table.
A wise man proportions his belief to the objective, independently confirmable
evidence.
A consensus reality has always provided a reassuring haven for those without the
ability to think critically.
Which are you?
BTW :ain't no "law of random probability". The most common phrase is random and
independent events. There are no predictive trends in random and independent
events by definition.
Your essential question is : are rolls of the dice random and independent
events. Do Google search on "events random independent" and get back to me on
what "the majority holds" about dice trends.
Onward thru the fog,
Mason |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nag
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:00 am Post subject: Re: random "events" or not? |
|
|
Basically, all things trend. Numbers so much so. Hot tables dont last
forever, maybe three or sessions at max. If craps is negative expectation
than I play anamolies. 4 yos in a row is anamoly. But, I have seen it
several times. But having the balls to press a yo even twice scares
everyone. If there is no cheating the numbers will fall. Being able to
calculate the next hard four isnt all that hard when everything else has
fallen. Being able to maintain bankroll until it plays is truely a shooter.
For me its pure greed which is the downfall. Every time its hard not to
believe that what just occured will occur again. Perfecting systems and dice
throwing is kinda boring. Dice randomness is what makes it appealing. I
watched a man every weekend for three months buy the line for 50+ per number
every session. He always had between 5,000 & 10,000 in front of him. Every
number he would press when it hit. I only seen him win one night about
4,000. I don't see him anymore. I dont use this system at all.
-Nag |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Shank
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:55 pm Post subject: Re: random "events" or not? |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 18:57:14 -0500, "Nag" <[email protected]> wrote:
| Quote: | Basically, all things trend. Numbers so much so. Hot tables dont last
forever, maybe three or sessions at max. If craps is negative expectation
than I play anamolies. 4 yos in a row is anamoly.
|
No, it's not; it's just unusual.
| Quote: | If there is no cheating the numbers will fall.
|
Huh? What does that mean, pray tell.
| Quote: | Being able to
calculate the next hard four isnt all that hard when everything else has
fallen.
|
Please post your calculation of the "next hard 4."
Cheers,
Alan Shank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nag
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 2:15 am Post subject: Re: random "events" or not? |
|
|
Okay, unusual. The numbers will fall meaning eventually all possible
combinations will be produced. Calculations are basically based on the
session. If a hard 4 dons hit within say 72 rolls than the odds are like 2.
I really hate math. (.02777) * 72. Does that mean a hard four is going to
throw? No, but the odds are getting better that it will. Now, all of sudden
4's start rolling? Sheet, I will be on the hard 4. Its really no different
than trying to find a hot table. If your a pass than you look for some young
chick standing at the far end of the table shakin dice at about her neck
bent slightly forward and throwin them right down the middle. There is bunch
of folks screamin and a stack of money on every number. Thats all I am
saying. Forget about the odds, the systems, the influencers, and embrace the
truely beautiful system of random events. Alls I know is everything trends.
Random events are no different. I think its the moon.
-Nag
| Quote: | Basically, all things trend. Numbers so much so. Hot tables dont last
forever, maybe three or sessions at max. If craps is negative expectation
than I play anamolies. 4 yos in a row is anamoly.
No, it's not; it's just unusual.
If there is no cheating the numbers will fall.
Huh? What does that mean, pray tell.
Being able to
calculate the next hard four isnt all that hard when everything else has
fallen.
Please post your calculation of the "next hard 4."
Cheers,
Alan Shank |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gregg Cattanach
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:40 pm Post subject: Re: random "events" or not? |
|
|
Nag wrote:
| Quote: | Okay, unusual. The numbers will fall meaning eventually all possible
combinations will be produced. Calculations are basically based on the
session. If a hard 4 dons hit within say 72 rolls than the odds are
like 2. I really hate math. (.02777) * 72. Does that mean a hard four
is going to throw? *No, but the odds are getting better that it will.*
|
NOT!
The odds of not throwing a hard 4 in 72 rolls isn't that small at all,
(~13%) However, if you haven't seen it in 72 rolls, the odds of throwing
it on roll 73 is EXACTLY 1/36, just like it was for the other 72 rolls.
BTW, (.02777*72) doesn't give you any meaningful answer for this problem.
The correct calculation for no hard 4 for 72 rolls is: (35/36) ^72 .
--
Gregg C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Shank
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:35 pm Post subject: Re: random "events" or not? |
|
|
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 21:00:32 -0500, "Nag" <[email protected]> wrote:
| Quote: | Okay, unusual. The numbers will fall meaning eventually all possible
combinations will be produced. Calculations are basically based on the
session. If a hard 4 dons hit within say 72 rolls than the odds are like 2.
I really hate math. (.02777) * 72. Does that mean a hard four is going to
throw? No, but the odds are getting better that it will.
|
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzztt! This, of course, is the infamous
Gambler's Fallacy. It is based on a misunderstanding of the difference
between an infinite universe (like craps and roulette) and a finite
one (like card games). Once again, I quote again from
Epstein, "The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic":
'The law of large numbers has frequently been cited as the guarantor
of an eventual head-tail balance. Actually, in colloquial form, the
law proclaims that the difference between the number of heads and the
number of tails thrown may be expected to increase indefinitely as the
number of trials increases, although by decreasing proportions. Its
operating principle is "inundation" rather than "compensation." '
| Quote: | Now, all of sudden
4's start rolling? Sheet, I will be on the hard 4. Its really no different
than trying to find a hot table.
|
That's very true; it's no different. Neither has any basis whatsoever
in the area of random, independent events, which dice rolls are.
Cheers,
Alan Shank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nag
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:35 am Post subject: Re: random "events" or not? |
|
|
Haaahaaa,
Well, I suppose fallacy is a technical term. I am no einstien nor do I
claim to be. I cant even get past the correct odds for buy payouts. I figure
the 15 fields will more than compensate for my ignorance of numbers. I know
that for every roll there are 36 possible outcomes. Which from what I get
from this group is that each generated outcome is an independant event.
Which is what I believe. I put forth the calculation in regards to the
request. By no means do I actually sit there and calculate how many rolls
are in each output I am usually way to drunk. I have won more by my gut than
any odds I could possibly calculate. If I played by the odds than I wouldn't
play since it is negative expectation. If there was a way to figure out
craps either through odds or my placing bets on the table than some one
would already figured it out.
-Nag |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nag
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:35 am Post subject: Re: random "events" or not? |
|
|
One last thought on my behalf on your einstien thing. I never said "balance"
you said that for me. What I said was that "one 4H" would roll. This could
wind up being 10 or 100 but eventually a hard four will roll. And if
einstien disagrees than wow I am a genius.
-Nag. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Shank
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 5:41 pm Post subject: Re: random "events" or not? |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 21:33:15 -0500, "Nag" <[email protected]> wrote:
| Quote: | One last thought on my behalf on your einstien thing. I never said "balance"
you said that for me.
|
That's Epstein, actually.
Here's exactly what you posted:
"If a hard 4 dons hit within say 72 rolls than the odds are like 2.
I really hate math. (.02777) * 72. Does that mean a hard four is going
to throw? No, but the odds are getting better that it will."
You specifically said that the "odds are getting better." The usual
rational for this assertion is that a paucity of a number will be
balanced later, since, in the long run, the "perfect 36" will be
realized. In fact, however, the odds NEVER change in craps. The quote
from Epstein is the clearest explanation I have seen of how random,
independent events really work.
Cheers,
Alan Shank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nag
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am Post subject: Re: random "events" or not? |
|
|
Epstien Einstien do they shoot craps? Well I am glad you quoted me. I did
say better. And you took it as balance.
Ex.
If you close a door half way mathematically it will never close. In
reality the door will. We are taking about numbers. Using the actual .027
odd to summate the overall hyperbola was a bit of a stretch. However, I
found it intrigueing when on the other end you try for the 4 yo's in a row.
Again, I only want the door to close. Have you shot craps and the hard 4
never rolled? If that was the case I would say your dice are biased or the
shooter has yet to shoot them on the table.
-Nag |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Shank
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:01 pm Post subject: Re: random "events" or not? |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:29:12 -0500, "Nag" <[email protected]> wrote:
| Quote: | Epstien Einstien do they shoot craps? Well I am glad you quoted me. I did
say better. And you took it as balance.
|
Well, whether your explanation of why/how the odds are getting better
is balance or not, the statement is still simply wrong. The odds never
get better or worse. This is the Gambler's Fallacy, well known by both
mathematicians and craps players and those who are both.
| Quote: | However, I
found it intrigueing when on the other end you try for the 4 yo's in a row.
|
Huh? What are you referring to?
| Quote: | Again, I only want the door to close. Have you shot craps and the hard 4
never rolled?
|
I'm sure I've had sessions at craps when the hard 4 did not roll, but
I certainly would not have noticed that. Let's say you play for an
hour, about 100 rolls. The probability of not getting a hard four in
100 rolls is .0598, or odds of only 15.7 to 1 against. So, if you bet
someone you could play for an hour and not have a hard four roll, your
chances of winning that bet would be better than your chances of
winning a one-roll bet on the 3 or 11!
The more rolls you play, the lower the probability gets of not having
rolled a hard four, but the probability of rolling a hard four on the
NEXT ROLL, or before an easy four or seven, never changes. This is
another aspect of the common misconception among gamblers, the failure
to understand the difference between the probability of some event in
some number of trials BEFORE the start of those trials, and the
probability of the event DURING the set of trials, i.e. after some
portion of the trials has been completed. This is easy to demonstrate
with a short coin-flipping example:
flip a fair coin 3 times
TTT
HHH
TTH
THT
HTT
HHT
THH
HTH
These are all the possible sequences, each equally likely. So, the
probability of getting three tails is .125. Now, suppose the first
flip results in tails. It is now impossible to get three heads, right?
We know that the sum of all the probabilities must be 1.0, so where
did that .125 probability of getting all heads go? In fact, where did
all the probabilities of those sequences beginning with a head go?
They were "re-distributed" among the remaining possibilities. We're
left with:
TTT
TTH
THT
THH
What's the probability of three heads now? It's .25, isn't it? So, if
you think the probability of two more tails is still .125, you'd think
the odds of a head are "getting better," just like you think the odds
of a hard four after 72 rolls without one are "getting better."
Many people, and you appear to be one of them, just can't get their
heads around this concept.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Shank
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:02 pm Post subject: Re: random "events" or not? |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:29:12 -0500, "Nag" <[email protected]> wrote:
BTW, how is Nagaina?
Cheers,
Alan Shank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.11 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
