It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: [post=26813277]Degradation33[/posL
How about this one, there are twenty horses in a race, and each one is represented by a number, Only one can win. you put all the counters with the twenty numbers in a shaker and give them a good shake. The chances of pulling the winning number out with the first counter removed are twenty to one. Not good odds and so on till you have removed ten counters. From then on it's a ten-to-one shot. So probabilities should suggest that the winning horse should always be in the last ten. So here is game of chance. I often wondered if this is like the Monty Hall effect where how you make the decision has an effect on the outcome.
Conclusion:
This isn't exactly counting. But it does tread into similar statistical territory. If anything it's playing to the belief you won't lose two or three times in a row. And If you do, it's unlikely to bust you out.
The sixteen percent hit rate equals a winning percentage of 80%. Slightly better than the 19:15 odds.
I have yet try this full scale at a casino. Even in the proportionally smaller version it still takes 500 dollars that you have to commit yourself to the possibility of losing. Still curious how it would go outside a random number generating app.
I thought this was cool enough to share. In the 18 positive takes cutting off at 100 spins, after subtracting the two losing tries, the net gain was about $124,000.
originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety
I remember this.
Gambler fallacy noted and applicable.
Still, this seems to consistently work. I tried it over and over with multiple apps and rarely lost.
It started to seem like "there was more" to causality. Even though there's no statistical advantage ever gained, the best analogy I can make is this:
Is a 50 year period there will be overall statistical odds of major earthquakes doing damage. So many a year. But when you look at the data they seemingly clump together. Some years seem to have a higher number of 7's and 8's +, 2010 and 2011 are an example of this unpredictable peak. This concept is like recognizing you're in a peak of a certain statistical occurrence and trying to game THAT.
Like consider numbers 30-36 peaking in occurrence like earthquakes of magnitude 7's and 8's peaking in occurrence. In the shorter term, people thinking earthquakes are moon phase-related are just seeing shorter term statistical peaks (like weeks of calm followed by a bunch of 6.0's + in a few days) and trying to line it up with something. It may just be the weird way lumps of statistics balance out in the long run. It'd be like waiting for that uptick of earthquakes, recognizing it's happening, and betting the 6.0's will hit more frequently for a few days.
Trying to identify the ebb and flow of statistical cluttering and defy odds in one's favor. Might as well call it "The Intuition Chaos Method".
** Wait, I explained the wrong one again. Deja Vu. I did this once already. And clarified the wrong version once already. I have another more intuition/guess related one that is just betting 6 numbers on the board. Which also seems to work over and over. Just not as consistently as the 30 number one which is why I posted this one instead. The OP version was more using said gambler's fallacy to try to predict and avoid when you might be due to lose with 38:30 odds.
It should be worth noting I was able to do this on the first attempt to demonstrate it with screen grabs. Gamblers fallacy or not it always seems to work.
originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Degradation33
I think there may be order in the roulette wheel of chaos because every time my daughter plays she has a system she uses and she always wins, but she always knows when to stop too. Once while at a casino, I gave her $100 and told her to turn it into $300 she came back with $600.
originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety
I also noticed when playing three card poker that winning or losing depends on which position you are in and if you push it (bet all ways), again, variance.
Would have won the Cal State Poker Championship one year, but the river made a straight (I was AA vs J10 all in).
originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety
Would have won the Cal State Poker Championship one year, but the river made a straight (I was AA vs J10 all in).
Did you want to call the person whose river made the straight a river whore? Ha Ha That's what I've been called by taking chances/risks with the river card.
Since the odds are so close in certain roulette, craps and blackjack situations (near a coin flip that only slightly favors the House), there will be many people who only experience the upside of variance for extended periods of time, and proper bet sizing maximizes your normal upside variance outcome.
But there will be slightly more that experience some degree of downside variance, so with variance, one can beat the House; but collectively all of the players cannot beat the House.
That’s real world results.
Variance is generally higher and more lumpy with digital versions of table games because random number generation in digital casino table games is not truly random — so an individual player has a higher chance with a digital random number generator of experiencing upside variance (and another individual random player offsets that with a higher chance of experiencing downside variance with a random number generator).
originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety
Would have won the Cal State Poker Championship one year, but the river made a straight (I was AA vs J10 all in).
Did you want to call the person whose river made the straight a river whore? Ha Ha That's what I've been called by taking chances/risks with the river card.
originally posted by: RickinVa
This does not compute.
Being that every single spin is independent of the previous spin, thinking you will win after a certain amount of losses doesn't hold water and is a recipe for disaster.
originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety
Well that explains how I kept beating the house. I did not know "random number generators follow a pattern and seed number. I thought they were all non-deterministic and truly random. Well, that kills it as something easily applied in real money applications.
How exaggerated is the variance with digital programs?
With the free apps I always won, good to know I was just gaming lazy programmers. Thought I unlocked chaos for a second. Tried the game the roulette wheel, and I gamed the roulette wheel program instead. Go me!
Thank you. Enlightening answer.
originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety
Well that explains how I kept beating the house. I did not know "random number generators follow a pattern and seed number. I thought they were all non-deterministic and truly random. Well, that kills it as something easily applied in real money applications.
Depends on the type engineering
And the stakes
Low stakes lazy programmers = deterministic RNG
How exaggerated is the variance with digital programs?
With the free apps I always won, good to know I was just gaming lazy programmers. Thought I unlocked chaos for a second. Tried the game the roulette wheel, and I gamed the roulette wheel program instead. Go me!
Thank you. Enlightening answer.