- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: OT Math Gurus -- Craps Statistical Question
Posted on 7/30/16 at 7:02 pm to Peazey
Posted on 7/30/16 at 7:02 pm to Peazey
quote:
Statistically, the big down swings should be balanced by the big upswings.
This is what is referred to as the Gambler's fallacy. The assumption that you are taking for granted is that the statistics rely on an infinite sample.
Eta: also, the contributing mistake is the idea that past results affects future results. Just because you had 4 heads in a row doesn't mean that you are any more likely to get a tails on the next flip.
Was just coming to post this. Peazy nailed it.
1
Posted on 7/30/16 at 7:07 pm to gaetti15
quote:
Just because you had 4 heads in a row doesn't mean that you are any more likely to get a tails on the next flip.
Given a large enough sample size that's not exactly true.
Central limit theorem
Posted on 7/30/16 at 7:23 pm to Boagni Swamp
House always wins man. Casinos wouldn't exist if they didn't win in the long run. The longer you stay at a table, the better chance they have to take your money, statistically. And if you ignore statistics in a casino you're going to lose all your money
Posted on 7/30/16 at 7:24 pm to Boagni Swamp
quote:
Statistically, the big down swings should be balanced by the big upswings.
If your bankroll is as large as the casino's, maybe.
The house can ride out a long series of random losses. Can you?
The fact that the house has much more capital is worth at least 5-7%.
This post was edited on 7/30/16 at 7:25 pm
Posted on 7/30/16 at 7:26 pm to Boagni Swamp
quote:
Statistically, the big down swings should be balanced by the big upswings.
Anytime you use the word "should" to describe a random process, you know you are full of shite.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 7:31 pm to Boagni Swamp
I'd rather spend my money at a bar and have a 10% chance of getting laid than sitting at a casino by myself and have a 0.02% chance of winning $5 after spending $4000
Posted on 7/30/16 at 7:35 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Central limit theorem
That's my point. So long as you can weather the downturns and gamble for long enough, you should pass through the mean point, which is the starting point. Then you walk away.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 7:35 pm to Hammertime
quote:
I'd rather spend my money at a bar and have a 10% chance of getting laid than sitting at a casino by myself and have a 0.02% chance of winning $5 after spending $4000
Perhaps my odds of getting laid are a little better than yours. And cheaper.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 7:36 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Given a large enough sample size that's not exactly true.
This has to do with the averages of a sufficiently large sample size. It doesn't have anything to do with the next marginal step.
This post was edited on 7/30/16 at 7:37 pm
Posted on 7/30/16 at 7:36 pm to Boagni Swamp
2$ YO
Posted on 7/30/16 at 7:37 pm to foshizzle
quote:
If your bankroll is as large as the casino's, maybe.
I'd say the chance of you needing a roll as big as the house's is exactly equal to your chances of breaking the house on a lucky streak, which is to say, that is so close to impossible it is not worth weighing into the decision process.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 7:38 pm to Boagni Swamp
24513
Posted on 7/30/16 at 7:38 pm to Peazey
quote:
This has to do with the averages of a sufficiently large sample size. It doesn't have anything to do with the next marginal step.
That's my point. I'm not counting on a single roll. I'm counting on 20 hours of rolls to be about average. That seems like a good bet.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 7:38 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
House always wins man. Casinos wouldn't exist if they didn't win in the long run.
They don't have to win against every one every time to stay in business.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 7:41 pm to Boagni Swamp
quote:
They don't have to win against every one every time to stay in business
No they don't. But they do have to win the majority of the time. This guy thinks he can game the system, but statistically he can't. The games all have better odds for the house. Playing longer doesn't increase your odds
Posted on 7/30/16 at 7:42 pm to PrivatePublic
quote:
Anytime you use the word "should" to describe a random process, you know you are full of shite.
A huge numbers of dice rolls is NOT random in its overall distribution. One roll is random. 10,000 rolls are going to produce roughly 1666 sevens. Now it might be 1610. It might be 1704. But the chances of it being 3 are so small they are not worth considering. Its random within a pretty predictable range. And I can work with that.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 8:04 pm to Boagni Swamp
Not while sitting at a craps table they aren't
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News