vpFREE2 Forums

Best Randomness Analogy Contest

#61

True, but as the number of rolls approaches infinity the distribution will be exactly that.

···

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: guruperf@att.net
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:11:55 -0800
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

________________________________

"Equiprobable & Unpredictable". Everything has an equal chance of occurring and
you can't predict it.

Toss two fair dice. Everything has an equal chance of occuring and you can't
predict it? No, I can predict the follow outcomes:

2 occurs 1 out of 36
3 occurs 2 out of 36
4 occurs 3 out of 36
5 occurs 4 out of 36
6 occurs 5 out of 36
7 occurs 6 out of 36
8 occurs 5 out of 36
9 occurs 4 out of 36
10 occurs 3 out of 36
11 occurs 2 out of 36
12 occurs 1 out of 36

But not in EVERY 36 throws. Any stat-head out there want to calculate the odds
of that EXACT distribution occurring in one series of 36 throws?

._,___

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#62

Not true. The greater the number of rolls, the less likely it becomes that
the results are exactly the expected value.

Cogno

···

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf Of
David Silvus
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 7:58 PM
To: vpfree@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

True, but as the number of rolls approaches infinity the distribution will
be exactly that.

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: guruperf@att.net
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:11:55 -0800
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

________________________________

"Equiprobable & Unpredictable". Everything has an equal chance of occurring

and

you can't predict it.

Toss two fair dice. Everything has an equal chance of occuring and you

can't

predict it? No, I can predict the follow outcomes:

2 occurs 1 out of 36
3 occurs 2 out of 36
4 occurs 3 out of 36
5 occurs 4 out of 36
6 occurs 5 out of 36
7 occurs 6 out of 36
8 occurs 5 out of 36
9 occurs 4 out of 36
10 occurs 3 out of 36
11 occurs 2 out of 36
12 occurs 1 out of 36

But not in EVERY 36 throws. Any stat-head out there want to calculate the
odds
of that EXACT distribution occurring in one series of 36 throws?

._,___

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#63

Not according to the Law of Large Numbers.

···

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: cognoscienti@hotmail.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 06:56:14 -0800
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

Not true. The greater the number of rolls, the less likely it becomes that
the results are exactly the expected value.

Cogno

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf Of
David Silvus
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 7:58 PM
To: vpfree@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

True, but as the number of rolls approaches infinity the distribution will
be exactly that.

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: guruperf@att.net
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:11:55 -0800
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

________________________________

"Equiprobable & Unpredictable". Everything has an equal chance of occurring

and

you can't predict it.

Toss two fair dice. Everything has an equal chance of occuring and you

can't

predict it? No, I can predict the follow outcomes:

2 occurs 1 out of 36
3 occurs 2 out of 36
4 occurs 3 out of 36
5 occurs 4 out of 36
6 occurs 5 out of 36
7 occurs 6 out of 36
8 occurs 5 out of 36
9 occurs 4 out of 36
10 occurs 3 out of 36
11 occurs 2 out of 36
12 occurs 1 out of 36

But not in EVERY 36 throws. Any stat-head out there want to calculate the
odds
of that EXACT distribution occurring in one series of 36 throws?

._,___

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#64

Better sentence structure,please.Hard to understand.

···

-------Original Message-------

From: Cogno Scienti
Date: 1/17/2011 9:57:00 AM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

Not true. The greater the number of rolls, the less likely it becomes that
the results are exactly the expected value.

Cogno

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf Of
David Silvus
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 7:58 PM
To: vpfree@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

True, but as the number of rolls approaches infinity the distribution will
be exactly that.

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: guruperf@att.net
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:11:55 -0800
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

________________________________

"Equiprobable & Unpredictable". Everything has an equal chance of occurring

and

you can't predict it.

Toss two fair dice. Everything has an equal chance of occuring and you

can't

predict it? No, I can predict the follow outcomes:

2 occurs 1 out of 36
3 occurs 2 out of 36
4 occurs 3 out of 36
5 occurs 4 out of 36
6 occurs 5 out of 36
7 occurs 6 out of 36
8 occurs 5 out of 36
9 occurs 4 out of 36
10 occurs 3 out of 36
11 occurs 2 out of 36
12 occurs 1 out of 36

But not in EVERY 36 throws. Any stat-head out there want to calculate the
odds
of that EXACT distribution occurring in one series of 36 throws?

._,___

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#65

I believe you and Cogno are both correct, but you're talking about
different things. I'll reduce the problem to a simpler case -- flipping
a fair coin.

Suppose we flip a fair coin 1 million times and record the number
of heads, then repeat this experiment many many times and plot
the results.

The fraction of experiments where the number of heads is exactly
500,000 will be very small. This is what Cogno was talking about.
As the number of flips increase, the probability of having exactly
one half of them come up heads shrinks.

Most of the experiments will result in the number of heads being
near 500,000 (within a few thousand). This is what David is talking
about. As the number of flips increase, the outcome becomes
less likely to deviate far from the mean. Looking at the deviation
can be confusing because the deviation can appear to shrink or
to grow depending on how you look at it. When N coins are flipped,
the absolute deviation increases as sqrt(N), which increases as
N gets larger. Howevery, when you view the deviation as a fraction
the total number of flips, taking sqrt(N)/N gives 1/sqrt(N) which
shrinks as N grows larger. Thus, when you flip a fair coin a million
times, your outcome will usually be within 1000 flips of 500,000
heads, which is one part in 500. If you increase the experiment
to 100 million flips, then the absolute deviation grows to 10,000
flips but this is now one part in 5,000. So, depending on how
you look at it, the deviation is both growing and shrinking!

Not according to the Law of Large Numbers.

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: cognoscienti@hotmail.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 06:56:14 -0800
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

Not true. The greater the number of rolls, the less likely it becomes that
the results are exactly the expected value.

Cogno

From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]

On Behalf Of

David Silvus
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 7:58 PM
To: vpfree@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

True, but as the number of rolls approaches infinity the distribution will
be exactly that.

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: guruperf@att.net
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:11:55 -0800
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

________________________________

>"Equiprobable & Unpredictable". Everything has an equal chance of
> occurring

and

>you can't predict it.
>
>Toss two fair dice. Everything has an equal chance of occuring and you

can't

>predict it? No, I can predict the follow outcomes:

2 occurs 1 out of 36
3 occurs 2 out of 36
4 occurs 3 out of 36
5 occurs 4 out of 36
6 occurs 5 out of 36
7 occurs 6 out of 36
8 occurs 5 out of 36
9 occurs 4 out of 36
10 occurs 3 out of 36
11 occurs 2 out of 36
12 occurs 1 out of 36

But not in EVERY 36 throws. Any stat-head out there want to calculate

the

···

On Monday 17 January 2011 08:06:10 am you wrote:

-----Original Message-----
odds
of that EXACT distribution occurring in one series of 36 throws?

._,___

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#66

That is correct. My earlier e-mail should have read "but as the number of rolls approaches infinity the distribution will tends toward that" instead of "but as the number of rolls approaches infinity the distribution will be exactly that.". Sloppiness on my part.

The most likely single distribution would be the probability, although the likelihood of that particular exact distribution is extremely small.

Back to the "topic" (although I must admit I am not exactly sure what the origin topic was), there is a "pattern" that will develop as the number of rolls gets larger and larger. The total of the roll of 2 dice isn't entirely random since certain totals of the 2 dice are far more probable than others. The precise combination (4-3, 3-4, 5-2, etc.) is, however, completely random.

That said, the pattern does not change the discrete nature of each roll of the dice though. The probabilities never change -- a number is never "due" or "not due" on a particular roll due to the previous X number of outcomes. In that sense the total of the roll of 2 dice is random.

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: jacobs@xmission.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:35:00 -0700
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

I believe you and Cogno are both correct, but you're talking about
different things. I'll reduce the problem to a simpler case -- flipping
a fair coin.

Suppose we flip a fair coin 1 million times and record the number
of heads, then repeat this experiment many many times and plot
the results.

The fraction of experiments where the number of heads is exactly
500,000 will be very small. This is what Cogno was talking about.
As the number of flips increase, the probability of having exactly
one half of them come up heads shrinks.

Most of the experiments will result in the number of heads being
near 500,000 (within a few thousand). This is what David is talking
about. As the number of flips increase, the outcome becomes
less likely to deviate far from the mean. Looking at the deviation
can be confusing because the deviation can appear to shrink or
to grow depending on how you look at it. When N coins are flipped,
the absolute deviation increases as sqrt(N), which increases as
N gets larger. Howevery, when you view the deviation as a fraction
the total number of flips, taking sqrt(N)/N gives 1/sqrt(N) which
shrinks as N grows larger. Thus, when you flip a fair coin a million
times, your outcome will usually be within 1000 flips of 500,000
heads, which is one part in 500. If you increase the experiment
to 100 million flips, then the absolute deviation grows to 10,000
flips but this is now one part in 5,000. So, depending on how
you look at it, the deviation is both growing and shrinking!

> Not according to the Law of Large Numbers.
>
>
>
> To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
> From: cognoscienti@hotmail.com
> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 06:56:14 -0800
> Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Not true. The greater the number of rolls, the less likely it becomes that
> the results are exactly the expected value.
>
> Cogno
>
> From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]
On Behalf Of
> David Silvus
> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 7:58 PM
> To: vpfree@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest
>
> True, but as the number of rolls approaches infinity the distribution will
> be exactly that.
>
>
> To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
> From: guruperf@att.net
> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:11:55 -0800
> Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest
>
> ________________________________
>
> >"Equiprobable & Unpredictable". Everything has an equal chance of
> > occurring
>
> and
>
> >you can't predict it.
> >
> >Toss two fair dice. Everything has an equal chance of occuring and you
>
> can't
>
> >predict it? No, I can predict the follow outcomes:
>
> 2 occurs 1 out of 36
> 3 occurs 2 out of 36
> 4 occurs 3 out of 36
> 5 occurs 4 out of 36
> 6 occurs 5 out of 36
> 7 occurs 6 out of 36
> 8 occurs 5 out of 36
> 9 occurs 4 out of 36
> 10 occurs 3 out of 36
> 11 occurs 2 out of 36
> 12 occurs 1 out of 36
>
> But not in EVERY 36 throws. Any stat-head out there want to calculate
the
> odds
> of that EXACT distribution occurring in one series of 36 throws?
>
> ._,___
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

On Monday 17 January 2011 08:06:10 am you wrote:
> -----Original Message-----

#67

In terms of dollars the deviation is growing, which is why if you play an even money game (or 100% return) long enough with a set bankroll, you will eventually go bankrupt (not breakeven as is commonly thought). In other words, in an even money gamble, the swings in dollars increase, and eventually one of those swings will snap off your bankroll.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, jacobs <jacobs@...> wrote:

So, depending on how
you look at it, the deviation is both growing and shrinking!

#68

Back to the "topic" (although I must admit I am not exactly sure what the origin topic was), there is a "pattern" that will develop as the number of rolls gets larger and larger.

This entire thread is a contest with prizes for the best analogy to describe to the layman, why looking for patterns in Video Poker machines is a waste of time and can lead you astray.

My example post was "Highway to Hell":

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/110974

All entries should begin with:

"Contest Entry"

Prizes were stated in:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/111065

So far I have exactly zero official entries, as everyone seems to have forgotten the origin of the thread. I also stated that all other chatter should be put into a different thread. It's OK, I'm a cat lover and used to being ignored. So far, the only command my cat follows without question is, "do as you please". I still love him.

The contest will end Jan 21st.

If I search through the thread and find no official entires, I'll try to award the prizes to the best overall post. It would make my job easier if people stuck to the rules of the contest, but it seems to have gotten a bit "random". Guess that was to be expected.

~FK

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, David Silvus <djsilvus@...> wrote:

#69

Precisely. Unless your bankroll is as large as the casino's, the downswing will always get you if you play long enough -- even on a plus-return game. Discipline is, as always, the key. Unfortunately it is often lacking. Which, of course, is what Las Vegas is built upon. $X is never enough, everyone wants $X + $Y.

···

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:36:35 +0000
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, jacobs <jacobs@...> wrote:

So, depending on how
you look at it, the deviation is both growing and shrinking!

In terms of dollars the deviation is growing, which is why if you play an even money game (or 100% return) long enough with a set bankroll, you will eventually go bankrupt (not breakeven as is commonly thought). In other words, in an even money gamble, the swings in dollars increase, and eventually one of those swings will snap off your bankroll.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#70

I guess that's true if you define random as equiprobable as Frank wants to do. Personally I'm not that crazy about that definition. It leads to odd conclusions, like that the results of video poker are less random than the results of a fair coin flip, since everybody knows the results of video poker are not equiprobable.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, David Silvus <djsilvus@...> wrote:

The total of the roll of 2 dice isn't entirely random since certain totals of the 2 dice are far more probable than others.

#71

Sorry, I cannot make this thread shortened on my blackberry.
I win more than I lose & am always surprised. I like that kind of random. LOL! Just following Jeans rules to the letter.
Goin' shopping.
*Meredith

···

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone, powered by Cricket.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Frank" <frank@progressivevp.com>
Sender: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:46:51
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, David Silvus <djsilvus@...> wrote:
Back to the "topic" (although I must admit I am not exactly sure what the origin topic was), there is a "pattern" that will develop as the number of rolls gets larger and larger.

This entire thread is a contest with prizes for the best analogy to describe to the layman, why looking for patterns in Video Poker machines is a waste of time and can lead you astray.

My example post was "Highway to Hell":

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/110974

All entries should begin with:

"Contest Entry"

Prizes were stated in:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/111065

So far I have exactly zero official entries, as everyone seems to have forgotten the origin of the thread. I also stated that all other chatter should be put into a different thread. It's OK, I'm a cat lover and used to being ignored. So far, the only command my cat follows without question is, "do as you please". I still love him.

The contest will end Jan 21st.

If I search through the thread and find no official entires, I'll try to award the prizes to the best overall post. It would make my job easier if people stuck to the rules of the contest, but it seems to have gotten a bit "random". Guess that was to be expected.

~FK

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#72

There's some more tricks involved. For example, if the casino's policy is to stop you from playing once you win a certain amount, that's generally in your favor. More or less that's how Bob Dancer (or actually his wife) walked away (or was escorted away) from the MGM a big winner.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, David Silvus <djsilvus@...> wrote:

Precisely. Unless your bankroll is as large as the casino's, the downswing will always get you if you play long enough -- even on a plus-return game. Discipline is, as always, the key. Unfortunately it is often lacking. Which, of course, is what Las Vegas is built upon. $X is never enough, everyone wants $X + $Y.

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: nightoftheiguana2000@...
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:36:35 +0000
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, jacobs <jacobs@> wrote:
> So, depending on how
> you look at it, the deviation is both growing and shrinking!

In terms of dollars the deviation is growing, which is why if you play an even money game (or 100% return) long enough with a set bankroll, you will eventually go bankrupt (not breakeven as is commonly thought). In other words, in an even money gamble, the swings in dollars increase, and eventually one of those swings will snap off your bankroll.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#73

To be clear, I'm not crazy about using that definition either.

In my way of thinking (admittedly perhaps not the way everyone else thinks) the goal of this exercise is to find an analogy to the discreteness of each hand of VP as opposed to true randomness. The probability of X occuring in each hand is a "pattern" that can be easily calculated. The complete and utter lack of relationship between the outcomes of Hand X and Hand Y seems to be the concept the causes the target audience of the analogy the biggest problems.

Convincing someone that the probability of a Royal occuring on the next hand is the same regardless of whether the last 5 hands were Royals or if the last 500,000 hands were not Royals is virtually impossible if that person's starting point is believing that heads is "due" after 3 consecutive tails.

I have a brother who's an engineer. He "knows" the roll of the dice are discrete events, but he doesn't "believe" it, if that makes any sense. Personally, I've given up trying to argue with folks who refuse to acknowledge it.

···

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:16:57 +0000
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, David Silvus <djsilvus@...> wrote:

The total of the roll of 2 dice isn't entirely random since certain totals of the 2 dice are far more probable than others.

I guess that's true if you define random as equiprobable as Frank wants to do. Personally I'm not that crazy about that definition. It leads to odd conclusions, like that the results of video poker are less random than the results of a fair coin flip, since everybody knows the results of video poker are not equiprobable.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#74

<<There's some more tricks involved. For example, if the casino's policy is
to stop you from playing once you win a certain amount, that's generally in
your favor. More or less that's how Bob Dancer (or actually his wife) walked
away (or was escorted away) from the MGM a big winner.>>

Having an $800/hr play available for a year and a half helped too.

Cogno

#75

Interesting argument. I would comment thus:

You shouldn't be using the word, "equiprobable" and "results" in the same sentence. They very meaning of "probable" is what's likely to happen; and this judgment is made in advance of any "results". You are mixing your metaphors.

If results perfectly matched expectations then the word would be, "equiabsolute". No such word exists, lets keep it that way.

You stated with confidence that, "everybody knows the results of video poker are not equiprobable".

I know of no such thing. When I went over the two year records of my 88 member team, I was shocked at how close to exact expectation we had come. So close in fact, it was almost eerie. I have talked to the managers of other teams with similar large samples, and they all agree that VP machines exceeded their own expectation in keeping to perfectly random.

I don't like to contradict people, but you made a statement as to the beliefs of "everybody". If you meant "everybody you know", I forgive you. If so, I can add with confidence that "everybody you know" is no one I know.

After about our 50,000,000 hand as a team, we became convinced VP machines were honest and random.

Oh "equiprobable" is not mine, I got it from a book on Randomness and Modern RNG's.

4-days to close of contest, if you'd like to put in an entry.

~FK

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, David Silvus <djsilvus@> wrote:
>The total of the roll of 2 dice isn't entirely random since certain totals of the 2 dice are far more probable than others.

I guess that's true if you define random as equiprobable as Frank wants to do. Personally I'm not that crazy about that definition. It leads to odd conclusions, like that the results of video poker are less random than the results of a fair coin flip, since everybody knows the results of video poker are not equiprobable.

#76

I think some of the disconnect in the discussion may be arising out of context. Any 5-card combination on the deal is precisely as likely as any other combination. I'm not aware of anyone who thinks otherwise. If someone does, that's really a different discussion.

I think some are focusing the discussion on the randomness of "outcomes" instead on the randomness of actual combinations. I know I am. All I care about are outcomes. It matters not to me what my ultimate losing hand is. 4 to a straight flush = a rainbow of unpaired odd cards = pair of 4s. The decisions we make on the draw dramatically impact the probabilities of outcomes, but not the cards actually drawn. The cards are random, the outcomes are not necessarily. I haven't played FPDW in so long that if I found one there is little doubt in my mind I would not have optimal play. Many in this group would. Their outcomes, over time, would be superior to mine. That's not random. They wouldn't have some inside track on knowing what the next card would be. That's random.

···

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: frank@progressivevp.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:46:15 +0000
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

Interesting argument. I would comment thus:

You shouldn't be using the word, "equiprobable" and "results" in the same sentence. They very meaning of "probable" is what's likely to happen; and this judgment is made in advance of any "results". You are mixing your metaphors.

If results perfectly matched expectations then the word would be, "equiabsolute". No such word exists, lets keep it that way.

You stated with confidence that, "everybody knows the results of video poker are not equiprobable".

I know of no such thing. When I went over the two year records of my 88 member team, I was shocked at how close to exact expectation we had come. So close in fact, it was almost eerie. I have talked to the managers of other teams with similar large samples, and they all agree that VP machines exceeded their own expectation in keeping to perfectly random.

I don't like to contradict people, but you made a statement as to the beliefs of "everybody". If you meant "everybody you know", I forgive you. If so, I can add with confidence that "everybody you know" is no one I know.

After about our 50,000,000 hand as a team, we became convinced VP machines were honest and random.

Oh "equiprobable" is not mine, I got it from a book on Randomness and Modern RNG's.

4-days to close of contest, if you'd like to put in an entry.

~FK

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, David Silvus <djsilvus@> wrote:
>The total of the roll of 2 dice isn't entirely random since certain totals of the 2 dice are far more probable than others.

I guess that's true if you define random as equiprobable as Frank wants to do. Personally I'm not that crazy about that definition. It leads to odd conclusions, like that the results of video poker are less random than the results of a fair coin flip, since everybody knows the results of video poker are not equiprobable.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#77

Contest Entry

You have accepted a comped trip to New Orleans with lots of free play. The first evening you are there the weather is perfect for a needed walk after a long day sitting at the $5 9/6 JOB triple play and you decide to do some exploring around the French Quarter. After walking down Bourbon Street you set off down one of the small side streets and in your wandering you get a little disoriented. The street is dark and deserted except for the large man walking towards you. He passes under a street lamp and your unconscious built in human expert pattern recognition capability discovers some similarity in the strangers face to that of your beloved uncle Frank and you get a strong feeling of déjà vu that provides you with a sense of comfort in the situation. So rather than avoiding the stranger you greet him with a smile when he stops you and asks for the time. ... After the mugging you realize that not every man with a chin and nose like uncle Frank's greets you with candy in hand.

#78

What about the teams that got busted out? And if all the survivors were getting close in dollars to the exact expectation, that sounds like the books were fixed, as in skimmed. More likely the survivors actually won more than expectation but the extra was getting skimmed off.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:

When I went over the two year records of my 88 member team, I was shocked at how close to exact expectation we had come. So close in fact, it was almost eerie. I have talked to the managers of other teams with similar large samples, and they all agree that VP machines exceeded their own expectation in keeping to perfectly random.

#79

It's always useful to pencil out some numbers. I can only guess at what you were doing, so feel free to correct if you'd like. Let's say your team was mostly playing 8/5 jacks quarter progressives with a start level of $2500 on the royal. Since you had a team and played till it hit, the meter movement was like cash back to you and didn't add to your variance. But the variance of the game itself is about 130. After 50 million hands, the 2SD range would be plus or minus about $200,000. You would expect to be somewhere in that range some 95% of the time, but it would be unusual (and suspect) to hit the average exactly.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:

After about our 50,000,000 hand as a team, we became convinced VP machines were honest and random.

#80

You asked, "What about the teams that got busted out?".

Well this is actually a good question.

I know of only one small team that went out of business due to loses. And that was because they had miscalculated the return of a machine they were playing frequently. We knew the correct return, but didn't tell them, because they were competitors. Even they ran as expected.

The large teams got pushed out of business by pressure from the IRS, and changes in tax laws. To a lessor extent the reduction in the number of playable progressives had some effect, but that was loss of potential income, not a loss of money.

To my knowledge, none of them lost money. I'm referring to the Big-Six. None of them busted out. Some retired wealthy.

~FK

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@> wrote:
>When I went over the two year records of my 88 member team, I was shocked at how close to exact expectation we had come. So close in fact, it was almost eerie. I have talked to the managers of other teams with similar large samples, and they all agree that VP machines exceeded their own expectation in keeping to perfectly random.

What about the teams that got busted out? And if all the survivors were getting close in dollars to the exact expectation, that sounds like the books were fixed, as in skimmed. More likely the survivors actually won more than expectation but the extra was getting skimmed off.