# Anybody good at maths?

• Basic
Joined: 15.04.2015
Is there anybody on here who knows how to do this equation?

Time series analysis
In time series analysis, as applied in statistics and signal processing, the cross-correlation between two time series describes the normalized cross-covariance function.[clarification needed]

Let (X_t,Y_t) represent a pair of stochastic processes that are jointly wide-sense stationary. Then the cross-covariance and the cross-correlation are given by

cross-covariance \gamma_{XY}(\tau) = \operatorname{E}[(X_t - \mu_X)(Y_{t+\tau} - \mu_Y)],
cross-correlation \rho_{XY}(\tau) = \operatorname{E}[ (X_t-\mu_X)\,(Y_{t+\tau}-\mu_Y)]/(\sigma_{X} \sigma_{Y}),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-correlation
• 64 replies
• Moderator
Moderator
Joined: 15.08.2013
Hello shatteredaces,

I had a quick look on the net and found a good reference that may be some help on dell computers text book section. If you require a link pm me.
Sadly I am not good at math but I hope this may be of some help.

Regards

Matt
• Basic
Joined: 15.04.2015
Originally posted by metalmonkey80
Hello shatteredaces,

I had a quick look on the net and found a good reference that may be some help on dell computers text book section. If you require a link pm me.
Sadly I am not good at math but I hope this may be of some help.

Regards

Matt
• Basic
Joined: 15.04.2015
P.s this maths shows online poker is broken....
• Bronze
Joined: 17.02.2008
Originally posted by shatteredaces
P.s this maths shows online poker is broken....
Explain?
• Basic
Joined: 15.04.2015
Originally posted by DarkNeo1
Originally posted by shatteredaces
P.s this maths shows online poker is broken....
Explain?
They will close the thread if I explain, 2+2 have just shut a 4k view in a few days thread, when I have provided the maths and have had people agree.

Mods- Can I run the thread and explain the proof?
• Moderator
Moderator
Joined: 27.01.2013
Pokerstrategy isn't like North-Korea. Please explain how online poker is broken. I have seen these funny calculations before but they were wrong
• Bronze
Joined: 01.05.2012
Hi shatteredaces,

Earlier this year, I believe he had a very similar discussion in this forum. As you may remember, we did unfortunately not really manage to find any common ground.

You may also recall this post by one of my fellow mods, specifically this part:
Originally posted by VorpalF2F
Please -- no more analogies, diagrams or nonsensical examples.
Please stick with established mathematics. If you can find a reference that supports your theory please provide a link that we can all check.

You claim that odds differ between pre-shuffled decks and a single deck shuffled multiple times.
Please provide a link to a recognized authoritative article that supports this claim.
Please do not copy/paste the article itself without the source reference.

Unless you have anything new to add this time, we're not really interested in re-starting this discussion all over again.

I hope you understand.
• Basic
Joined: 15.04.2015
Originally posted by Harrier88
Hi shatteredaces,

Earlier this year, I believe he had a very similar discussion in this forum. As you may remember, we did unfortunately not really manage to find any common ground.

You may also recall this post by one of my fellow mods, specifically this part:
Originally posted by VorpalF2F
Please -- no more analogies, diagrams or nonsensical examples.
Please stick with established mathematics. If you can find a reference that supports your theory please provide a link that we can all check.

You claim that odds differ between pre-shuffled decks and a single deck shuffled multiple times.
Please provide a link to a recognized authoritative article that supports this claim.
Please do not copy/paste the article itself without the source reference.

Unless you have anything new to add this time, we're not really interested in re-starting this discussion all over again.

I hope you understand.
I do have things to add, I have had agreement from other people, I have already provided the link with the maths of time correlation.

I have confirmed maths that 4/52 changes.

Please pick 52 top cards from 52 shuffled decks, leaving the values unseen. Shuffle the 52 cards, you think your chance of an ace is 4/52. This is incorrect, there is only a P=0.203317 that your 52 random's contain 4 aces, a P=0.8 approx there is not 4 aces.
• Moderator
Moderator
Joined: 27.01.2013
I remember that thread.. It was hilarious I agree with the mods.. Please no more. If you haven't learned to calculate.
• Basic
Joined: 15.04.2015
Originally posted by la55i
I remember that thread.. It was hilarious I agree with the mods.. Please no more. If you haven't learned to calculate.
I have just give you the results, please feel free to do the maths yourself.

$$P(4) = \left(\frac{4}{52}\right)^4 \times \left(1-\frac{4}{52}\right)^{52-4} \times \frac{52!}{4!(52-4)!} = 0.203317$$
• Bronze
Joined: 01.05.2012
I had a brief look at your thread over at 2+2. I did not really spot anything that struck me as new, nor did I see a lot of approval for your theories.

If you have nothing further to add apart from what you already mentioned in this thread, I don't really see any reason to keep this one going, to be honest.
• Basic
Joined: 15.04.2015
Originally posted by Harrier88
I had a brief look at your thread over at 2+2. I did not really spot anything that struck me as new, nor did I see a lot of approval for your theories.

If you have nothing further to add apart from what you already mentioned in this thread, I don't really see any reason to keep this one going, to be honest.
I had about 4 people in that thread discussing it, two of them understood. I have people on science forums who have done me the maths to calculate the chance that Y contains 4 aces. I was told If I could provide a link to show the problem, then to return. I have done this.
λ(X)=φ[sub]t[/sub]

λ(Y)=σ$$\frac{n}{y}$$/$$\frac{d}{t}$$

λ(X)=φ[sub]t1[/sub]=$$\frac{t1}{Z}$$

λ(Y)=σ$$\frac{t1}{Z}$$=t[sub]2[sub]

Copy and paste this in a forum that supports it, it explains the problem and the link supports this. Science will soon support this, some scientists already understand.

alternative see here -

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=62950.0

and here

https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/apparently-this-is-wrong/

This effects science, never mind just poker.
• Bronze
Joined: 17.01.2010
I saw this problem bugging people on MIT, a friend of mine came across it. It was a coding issue which has too many details so that I would go into it.

It's explained as a bug in logic. What you are trying to do is redefine a well defined logic with maths, such logic can't be explained with maths as you are trying to do.

You should send this to some more experienced math students/doctors, they like helping with such stuffs.

Actually a probability and statistics theorist is obviously something you need.

I wish you the best of luck
• Moderator
Moderator
Joined: 27.01.2013
And eventually none of this matters. Those calculations are irrelevant. We play with one deck and the randomizer works. My Holdem Manager shows after hundreds of thousands of hands that I get AA as often as I should.
• Basic
Joined: 15.04.2015
Originally posted by Zhusy
I saw this problem bugging people on MIT, a friend of mine came across it. It was a coding issue which has too many details so that I would go into it.

It's explained as a bug in logic. What you are trying to do is redefine a well defined logic with maths, such logic can't be explained with maths as you are trying to do.

You should send this to some more experienced math students/doctors, they like helping with such stuffs.

Actually a probability and statistics theorist is obviously something you need.

I wish you the best of luck
Thank you, and yes it is complex
• Basic
Joined: 15.04.2015
Originally posted by la55i
And eventually none of this matters. Those calculations are irrelevant. We play with one deck and the randomizer works. My Holdem Manager shows after hundreds of thousands of hands that I get AA as often as I should.
Hello la55, your holdem manager will show that in time you get the expected amount of aces, the Hypothesis is neither anything to do with the randomness of the cards themselves.
The Hypothesis is a complex matter involving ''time dilation'' and probably only about 10% of the population will even comprehend the hypothesis because it's complex nature is ''Einstein'' complex. The calculations are formulas to express the problem.
If you are interesting in wanting to or trying to understanding, I will be happy to try to explain to you and go through some simple thought examples to try and show you the problem if you are unable to grasp the formula descriptions expressing the problem.
• Bronze
Joined: 15.06.2009
Lol.