[Closed] Anybody good at maths?

Originally posted by shatteredaces

Originally posted by VorpalF2F

In this you are both 100% correct, and 100% wrong.
You are correct in that which deck you play with is completely and totally determined by chance.[2]

Hello again, you have just explained the Paradox and missed seeing the Paradox.

each number is a complete deck, you are getting the top card,

1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8..9..10..11..12..13..14..15

15 decks, 15 top cards, how many of the top 15 cards are aces?

The chance of choice is that which you are missing.

Just consider this post. Work with this post, you are not trying to understand.

you have a 1/15 chance of intercepting a 4/52 chance, would anyone argue with this?

I'm a law student, not a math student. I accept that I don't have the right education to understand what you are saying but from my point of view there is no paradox, i'm not jumping (don't even know what you meant by that) and I don't understand the "chance of choice". All I understand is that there are decs and cards and it is basic probability calculation, not quantum physics. I also do not see any connection with poker.

Ps. When do you add air resistance to your calculations?

"each number is a complete deck, you are getting the top card,
1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8..9..10..11..12..13..14..15
15 decks, 15 top cards, how many of the top 15 cards are aces?"

What comes to this. 1 it is irrelevant because the system doesn't work like that, go to science forums. 2 probably none of them has an ace since the cards can be put in 52! order. 3 maybe all of then contain an ace on top if they are new decks?

Originally posted by la55i
"each number is a complete deck, you are getting the top card,
1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8..9..10..11..12..13..14..15
15 decks, 15 top cards, how many of the top 15 cards are aces?"

What comes to this. 1 it is irrelevant because the system doesn't work like that, go to science forums. 2 probably none of them has an ace since the cards can be put in 52! order. 3 maybe all of then contain an ace on top if they are new decks?

1. the system does work like this.
2. science forums agreed x is not equal to y
3.yes all 15 top cards have an equal chance of being an ace and also an equal chance in not being an ace.

There is no air resistance but there is calculus and time involved.

1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8..9..10..11..12..13..14..15

I will tell you there is one ace, I have looked, what is your chance of picking the ace?

I offer you this for 15 turns.

I offer you a second game,

1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8..9..10..11..12..13..14..15

I will distribute these in order 1-15 to you, what is your chance of receiving an ace?

How can you say the system works like that when we have told you a million times that we play with ONE deck which contains ALL of the cards it should? The shuffle doesn't pick cards from several decks. I also agree that x is not y, like 2+2 is not 5. I also don't see how there is time involved.. The decks are made, hand starts and the deck is picked. After that the math is the same than with one deck. And the deck picked always contains 4 aces.

Originally posted by la55i
How can you say the system works like that when we have told you a million times that we play with ONE deck which contains ALL of the cards it should? The shuffle doesn't pick cards from several decks. I also agree that x is not y, like 2+2 is not 5. I also don't see how there is time involved.. The decks are made, hand starts and the deck is picked. After that the math is the same than with one deck. And the deck picked always contains 4 aces.

You are just not considering the event of the pick, the choice of deck,

e.g you are getting the top card that is designated to your seat the SB, I offer you a choice of 5 decks and tell you that every top card is an ace, what is the chance you will receive an ace?

Originally posted by shatteredaces

Originally posted by la55i
How can you say the system works like that when we have told you a million times that we play with ONE deck which contains ALL of the cards it should? The shuffle doesn't pick cards from several decks. I also agree that x is not y, like 2+2 is not 5. I also don't see how there is time involved.. The decks are made, hand starts and the deck is picked. After that the math is the same than with one deck. And the deck picked always contains 4 aces.

You are just not considering the event of the pick, the choice of deck,

e.g you are getting the top card that is designated to your seat the SB, I offer you a choice of 5 decks and tell you that every top card is an ace, what is the chance you will receive an ace?

If I'm in the first seat? Almost 0% because 2 of the first cards are burned, so it depends on the third card... And still it doesn't matter which deck I pick. They are all properly shuffled. Using only one deck and shuffling it again and again between hands is similar than picking a new shuffled deck. The system picks a deck, no matter what deck, and I still have the same chance to get an ace than in a live game with one deck.

Originally posted by la55i

Originally posted by shatteredaces

Originally posted by la55i
How can you say the system works like that when we have told you a million times that we play with ONE deck which contains ALL of the cards it should? The shuffle doesn't pick cards from several decks. I also agree that x is not y, like 2+2 is not 5. I also don't see how there is time involved.. The decks are made, hand starts and the deck is picked. After that the math is the same than with one deck. And the deck picked always contains 4 aces.

You are just not considering the event of the pick, the choice of deck,

e.g you are getting the top card that is designated to your seat the SB, I offer you a choice of 5 decks and tell you that every top card is an ace, what is the chance you will receive an ace?

If I'm in the first seat? Almost 0% because 2 of the first cards are burned, so it depends on the third card... And still it doesn't matter which deck I pick. They are all properly shuffled. Using only one deck and shuffling it again and again between hands is similar than picking a new shuffled deck. The system picks a deck, no matter what deck, and I still have the same chance to get an ace than in a live game with one deck.

Do you not know that on line poker does not use burn cards? and also column's 1-52 are all an inequality, so it would not matter, column two would still be aligned to player 1 the sb.

The answer was 5/5 100%

The odds of the 5 top cards containing exactly one ace -

4/52*(48/52)^4*5=0.27924038427

How do you know that they don't burn cards ♦ Do you even play poker? I believe no one knows how the system really works but I know it is regulated and checked by an independent company. I don't know what substances I have to start using to get to your level.. Do you know if there are aliens in Mars?

Ps. I think this was my last post here.. At least for now. I see no point in discussing about this any further. You can go explain your theory to some university professors or science forums but it has nothing to do with poker and no one agrees with you. And the shuffle system doesn't work the way you think it works and you refuse to believe it and you don't have any proof.. Bye.

Originally posted by la55i
How do you know that they don't burn cards ♦ Do you even play poker? I believe no one knows how the system really works but I know it is regulated and checked by an independent company. I don't know what substances I have to start using to get to your level.. Do you know if there are aliens in Mars?

Ps. I think this was my last post here.. At least for now. I see no point in discussing about this any further. You can go explain your theory to some university professors or science forums but it has nothing to do with poker and no one agrees with you. And the shuffle system doesn't work the way you think it works and you refuse to believe it and you don't have any proof.. Bye.

You obviously have no idea how internet poker works and the Physical process involved, I wish you good day sir.

The probability theory is just a religion that >99% of people believe in, just like the axiom of choice. An RNG can never be absolutely fair, but it's religiously believed be fair enough for practical purposes so that people agree to use it to play. It's your right to refuse to play with it, but hundreds of thousands of players have reached an implicit agreement to rely on it.

Probabilistically independent variables / random processes always have zero cross-correlation.

So what you're challenging is that causal independence doesn't imply probabilistic independence. That's actually up to human faith. E.g. if someone tosses a coin twice, the outcomes are believed to be probab. independent, but strictly speaking, they'll never be precisely independent (either causally or probab.) because the tosser's posture, mood etc. might depend slightly on how the first coin falls.

A similar argument applies to more sophisticated RNGs. They'll never be absolutely precise. However, they're subject to testing by special watchdogs which make sure that the key statistics* of the RNGs (like the observed cross-correlation) are close enough to fair ones so that every player can put sufficient trust in them.

* It's impossible to determine any probability distribution precisely from a finite number of observations. All that can be done is hypothesis testing. I.e. if, in 0.01% of all trials, the RNG is observed to do 'tricks' that an 'ideal' RNG would theoretically do in <0.0001% of cases, then the tested RNG is rejected as 'not close to ideal'.

There are many unreliable things in life. The probability of someone dying in an accident or of an accidentally contracted infection is alas non-zero, and it's believed to be way higher than that of a massively bankrolled winning player going broke because of the imperfection of a properly tested RNG. The threat of going broke undeservedly is miniscule in comparison with natural disasters and other inevitable threats. So it's best to stop worrying and focus on more beneficial self-improvements.

Originally posted by tonypmm
The probability theory is just a religion that >99% of people believe in, just like the axiom of choice. An RNG can never be absolutely fair, but it's religiously believed be fair enough for practical purposes so that people agree to use it to play. It's your right to refuse to play with it, but hundreds of thousands of players have reached an implicit agreement to rely on it.

Probabilistically independent variables / random processes always have zero cross-correlation.

So what you're challenging is that causal independence doesn't imply probabilistic independence. That's actually up to human faith. E.g. if someone tosses a coin twice, the outcomes are believed to be probab. independent, but strictly speaking, they'll never be precisely independent (either causally or probab.) because the tosser's posture, mood etc. might depend slightly on how the first coin falls.

A similar argument applies to more sophisticated RNGs. They'll never be absolutely precise. However, they're subject to testing by special watchdogs which make sure that the key statistics* of the RNGs (like the observed cross-correlation) are close enough to fair ones so that every player can put sufficient trust in them.

* It's impossible to determine any probability distribution precisely from a finite number of observations. All that can be done is hypothesis testing. I.e. if, in 0.01% of all trials, the RNG is observed to do 'tricks' that an 'ideal' RNG would theoretically do in <0.0001% of cases, then the tested RNG is rejected as 'not close to ideal'.

There are many unreliable things in life. The probability of someone dying in an accident or of an accidentally contracted infection is alas non-zero, and it's believed to be way higher than that of a massively bankrolled winning player going broke because of the imperfection of a properly tested RNG. The threat of going broke undeservedly is miniscule in comparison with natural disasters and other inevitable threats. So it's best to stop worrying and focus on more beneficial self-improvements.

We are not discussing the RNG.

shatteredaces,
Once again, you continue to insist that you are right, and everyone else is wrong.
There is no paradox. The probabilities are what they are. They have been known since ancient times. You cannot change them no matter how many decks you have, not matter what time they were created no matter what phase the moon is.

Once again, I present you with this challenge:
Please provide a reference that explains your position clearly, since you clearly cannot.

As regards poker, it does not matter in the slightest what the top (or any) card is. Because in poker it's not what cards you're dealt, it is what you do with them that matters.

I don't see that there is much point in continuing this thread unless you learn the mathematics yourself.
When you do, you will realize that Yohan (among others) is correct.

I will do a bit of research, and post again when it is complete.

All the best,
VS

Originally posted by la55i
Ps. I think this was my last post here.. At least for now. I see no point in discussing about this any further. You can go explain your theory to some university professors or science forums but it has nothing to do with poker and no one agrees with you. And the shuffle system doesn't work the way you think it works and you refuse to believe it and you don't have any proof.. Bye.

Thanks, la55i,
That pretty much sums it up.
shatteredaces has been posting this thread and several variations and it has been shut down on at least 3 forums that I know of -- PokerStrategy.com included.

The worst of it is, parts of what he says are correct, but he brings in irrelevant factors, and treats them as relevant, then draws impossible conclusions.

Cheers,
VS

Originally posted by shatteredaces

Originally posted by VorpalF2F

In this you are both 100% correct, and 100% wrong.
You are correct in that which deck you play with is completely and totally determined by chance.[2]

Hello again, you have just explained the Paradox and missed seeing the Paradox.

each number is a complete deck, you are getting the top card,

1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8..9..10..11..12..13..14..15

15 decks, 15 top cards, how many of the top 15 cards are aces?

The chance of choice is that which you are missing.

I missed this post earlier.
You say that I have explained the Paradox, yet missed the paradox.

We have repeatedly explained to you that there is no paradox, because the cards in other decks are completely, totally, and absolutely irrelevant to the cards in the deck under study.

What has you running in circles is the fact that you calculate correct probabilities, then introduce irrelevant factors and confuse yourself.

Peace,
VS

Originally posted by YohanN7

Your calculation,

P(4 aces in top cards picked) = (4/52)^4 * (1 - 4/52)^(52-4) * 52!/(4!(52 - 4)!) = 0.203317

is entirely correct. That is, the left hand side is correct. (I haven't evaluated to confirm the r h s. I'll just take it at face value, doesn't matter.)

I have confirmed that the right-hand number is correct.
I cannot tell whether this is the probability that *exactly* four aces are selected, or the probability that *at least* 4 aces are selected.

I tried to do this calculation by finding out the probability of the reverse, and subtracting from 1, but got a somewhat different answer, which I suspect is just rounding.

While exactly true, the result is totally irrelevant to poker -- whether live or online.

Cheers,
VS

Well kinda going offtopic but the RNG itself is random at total and it has a time element actually. No burned cards too.

I saw the details of the pokerstars RNG (they gave it maybe it's not right), but in the details you can see that the pokerstars RNG doesn't burn cards, and every next card you get is not static e.g. after flop you won't get the same turn if you stop the RNG in 1,2,3 or 4 seconds.

This math can't actually be used in the RNG case itself because the coding logic can't use ancient maths and probabilities like you all think it can, the end process is limited by a 0 and 1.

Originally posted by VorpalF2F

Originally posted by YohanN7

Your calculation,

P(4 aces in top cards picked) = (4/52)^4 * (1 - 4/52)^(52-4) * 52!/(4!(52 - 4)!) = 0.203317

is entirely correct. That is, the left hand side is correct. (I haven't evaluated to confirm the r h s. I'll just take it at face value, doesn't matter.)

I have confirmed that the right-hand number is correct.
I cannot tell whether this is the probability that *exactly* four aces are selected, or the probability that *at least* 4 aces are selected.
...
VS

It is the probability that exactly four aces are among the selected 52 "top cards". This is also where our friends logic fails when he concludes that chances of drawing an A from the "top cards" is not 1/13.

Originally posted by tonypmm
The probability theory is just a religion that >99% of people believe in, just like the axiom of choice.
...

Probability theory has an element of religion (axioms), but that element is (religiously:D) believed to be small enough that it counts as a science in the same vein as mathematics. Then, the axiom of choice (AC). Wow! Now I'm happy, the forum is getting increasingly interesting. But, well, the axiom of choice has an element of religion to it as well, but to a much lesser extent than probability theory (which in turn is somewhat less of a religion than, say, presbyterianism). It is embraced in the foundations of mathematics (here in the guise of the wellordering theorem). There are mathematicians that do not like the axiom of choice because it falsifies some of their religious beliefs (e.g. all sets are Lebesgue measurable). These are few and they most likely enjoy being "anti" more than they really believe that AC is wrong. Genuine mathematician crackpots if you want.