When you wake up it's a new morning
By Bob Abooey (Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:12:39 AM EST) Super High Tech Jet Fighters (all tags)
The B.A.D.TM

Giving up the booze and the one night stands since 1977...

Here's the B.A.D sanctioned song of the day. Turn it up, put it on repeat, become one with the groove. Those cats should have made it big.

Is anyone else disappointed with the new President Bush? Seriously, the cat goes around tilting at windmills for 6 years and now all of a sudden after getting his ass kicked he starts talking like a rational bloke????? Rush Limbergher too. With giddy anticipation I tuned into listen to him on Wednesday, hoping to hear a bunch of insane delusional ranting etc etc., only to hear the guy almost, almost, almost make sense. So, all these hardcore right-wing nutjobs take one up the ass and all of a sudden they become big pussies??? Bah.

Speaking of nutjobs, is anyone else afraid to visit the Daily KOS? Part of me wants to go there just to be reminded of what high school was like, but it's like picking at a scab, it's always the wrong thing to do regardless of how tempting it is. Speaking of tempting, did anyone else notice that Nancy Pelosi has a nice rack? Just sayin.

Speaking of, well, whatever, I pulled/tweaked a pec muscle, AGAIN, at the gym this morning. WTF? I've been taking extra pains to get warmed up and stuff yet I'm always dealing with some sort of a malfunction. Is this my fate? Is this related to some sort of a calcium deficiency??? Is this bad karma finally coming back to haunt me? Is this the onset of old-age? What next, a hip replacement and subscriptions to all the AARP magazines? Is this some kind of sick coincidence that the Dems take control of the country and immediately I pull a muscle? Friggin Dems, bring back the Republicans.

Speaking of fate, in two weeks I'll be loading my pasty white arse on a big ol plane and heading to Las Vegas for a week of debauchery and whatnot. Two Weeks. Crack. Whores. Gambling. $15 All-You-Can-Eat Buffets. I think that sums it right up. That reminds me, I need to find some website that lets you pretend gamble on blackjack. I need to learn how to play if I'm going to make a tonne of dough. Right. When you wake up it's a new morning | 87 comments (87 topical, 0 hidden) dkos by MillMan (4.00 / 1) #1 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:16:27 AM EST I was reloading it constantly for election updates. The front page isn't THAT shrill. When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it? It was a good news aggregator by cam (2.00 / 0) #26 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:00:33 AM EST on election night. More ordered with its front page news that the 'proper' news sites. Though I was refreshing them (abc, cnn) as well as some conservative and Auian sites. It was Auian daytime when it happened so they were keeping astride it too. [ Parent ] Blackjack's easy by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #2 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:19:21 AM EST Just a chart to memorize. Basics: Always hit 11 or less. Never hit 17 or more. Always hit 16 or less if the dealer shows a face card. Never hit 12 or more if the dealer shows a six. Never split 5s Never take Insurance The only hard bits is if you have 12-16 and the dealer shows 2-5. I've seen people use little cheat sheets in the casinos...the casinos don't care because if you follow the rules exactly, odds still favor the house slightly. Oh, and 2-6 -> +1, 10s and face cards -> -1 Bet high when the count is positive, low when it's not. --- [ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman Cool by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #3 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:21:35 AM EST What's this double-down stuff all about. Warmest regards, --Your best pal Bob [ Parent ] Seat position. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #4 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:30:52 AM EST Sit in the chair immediately to the dealer's left. It doesn't alter your chances of winning, but the rest of the folks at the table will expect folks to the dealer's right to react to the cards on the table and change their strategy accordingly. When things don't work, they hold that player accountable and make them feel like an ass. If you sit in the first position, the other players won't care what you do. Double down when your first two cards total 10 or 11 and the dealer's up card is a 4, 5, or 6. [ Parent ] Great stuff by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #7 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:55:25 AM EST Okay, but what actually happens when I double down? Does that mean I'm doubling my bet? Warmest regards, --Your best pal Bob [ Parent ] Yep. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #11 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:08:32 AM EST It means you double your bet and get one, and only one, more card. [ Parent ] Yes by barooo (2.00 / 0) #16 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:16:40 AM EST If you double down, you double your bet and get ONE MORE CARD. Ideally, it'll be a ten or an ace, depending on what you need for 21. At that point, since your bet is double, you win twice as much if you win. Splitting means that you're playing two hands. If you have duplicate cards, you can split them, and play them as two separate hands (with a full size bet on each). If aces split, you only get one more card, but if it's another ace you can re-split up to a certain number of times. The simple rule is split Aces and 8's, but there are times (see my other post) when you want to split other things. Never split tens, no matter what. To quote the old joke, if you had a ten-inch wanger, would you cut it in half so you could have two five-inch wangers? To indicate doubling down, put down another bet, and hold out one finger ("one card"). To split, put out a double bet, and hold out two fingers, spread apart. The dealer will still usually ask you, to clarify, if both plays would be legal, e.g., if you have two fives. To hit, tap the table with one finger. To stay, hold your palm flat over the table and move it side to side. DO NOT TOUCH YOUR CARDS. EVER. man, i need a beefy taco now. -gzt [ Parent ] Note by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #27 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:04:41 AM EST The rules can vary slightly from casino to casino. Another good rule of thumb: if the dealer asks "are you sure?" it probably means you're attempting to do something stupid. --- [ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman [ Parent ] another tip: by dr k (2.00 / 0) #42 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 02:34:00 PM EST Whenever you win some chips, stealthily put some of them into your pocket. This is a sure way to get comped. :| :| :| :| :| [ Parent ] this by garlic (2.00 / 0) #69 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:00:26 AM EST reduces the std deviation on results from playing, but also limits your winnings by decreasing the amount of money left to bet. [ Parent ] The way I play by barooo (2.00 / 0) #8 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:03:42 AM EST Any time the dealer is showing a 3,4,5, or 6, I'll stay on 12+ and double down on anything else. It's aggressive, but the odds are against the dealer with those cards showing. If you have 12 and he has a 2, hit or stay, doesn't matter, just pick one and be consistent. I hit. Other than that, double down ten against anything other than a ten showing, double down 11 against anything, always split aces and 8's, and if you can split against a dealer bust card, do it. If you split and get a 3rd card of the same thing, keep splitting. If it was worth doing once, it's worth doing again. Hit aggressively on soft totals against an 8, 9, or 10 (soft means you have an ace counting as 11). My rule is I'll hit soft 19 against a 10, soft 18 against a 9+, soft 17 against an 8+, etc. Stay on soft anything against a dealer bust card. If you're in the last seat to play before the dealer takes his cards, some people will get pissed off if you hit when the dealer has a bust card, saying "you're taking his bust card!". Fuck 'em. I'll tone down the doubling down, but I'm still doubling a 9, 10, or 11, and still splitting 8's or aces. But the best solution is just to not sit in that chair :) I don't count cards , because I don't have the attention span, but now that I've gotten into the poker, that may not be true any more. But still, it's luck. You're a little less than break even, at best, in the long term, but your money comes from hands where you get aces against a bust card, split and resplit, and then the dealer busts. If you can get a couple of those in a session, you can easily double or triple your starting stakes. I've turned$100 into $600 once, and into$2-$300 numerous times. The cardinal rule of gambling is, figure out ahead of time how much you are willing to lose this session, and if you lose it, WALK THE FUCK AWAY. RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Go get a lap dance, or find a buffet or something. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT go into the well and try to "win back your money"; at this point it is no longer yours. man, i need a beefy taco now. -gzt [ Parent ] Now that I reread that by barooo (2.00 / 0) #9 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:05:44 AM EST I think I fucked up the part about aggressively hitting soft totals. Subtract one from what I said, I think. I might have to go look it up. man, i need a beefy taco now. -gzt [ Parent ] Sweet mother of God by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #19 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:30:31 AM EST Maybe I'll just stick to the slots... What's this split business all about? Warmest regards, --Your best pal Bob [ Parent ] I believe by martingale (2.00 / 0) #40 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 02:13:18 PM EST it works best with hookers who used to be cheerleaders in high school. But maybe I'm confused with that foreign language, English, you guys use up in Las Vegas. --$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$[ Parent ] Counting cards by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #25 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:00:08 AM EST I don't do it myself...it takes too much effort and only just barely changes the odds. --- [ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman [ Parent ] In the long run by barooo (2.00 / 0) #32 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:39:32 AM EST even a slight adjustment of the odds in your favor is huge. That is one thing that poker has taught me. But given the hostile odds-slashing rules and 6 decks, blackjack is a game to play when you've got a couple hundo burning a hole in your pocket, a nice buzz, and a couple of hours to kill. Poker is a game to play if you want to make money, blackjack is strictly for fun, for the most part. man, i need a beefy taco now. -gzt [ Parent ] Yeah by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #35 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:10:24 AM EST I gave up all thought of it, though, when I realized that to make more than minimum wage, you needed a$10k stake, and if you make serious money, they just throw you out.
---
[ Parent ]
Nancy Pelosi by Gedvondur (2.00 / 0) #5 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:45:19 AM EST
Dude, she's 67.  Without the wonderbra, I'm certain it's chickenboobs all the way.

Although it is funny to watch grown Republican men fear a 67 year old Mother of five and Grandmother of five.

Gedvondur
"I don't have enough middle fingers to communicate my feelings to you." --clover kicker

67???? by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 3) #6 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:54:10 AM EST
67??? Get the fuck outta here! She's 67??? I saw her on CNN this morning and thought she was in her 50's.

Still, those are whoppers.

Warmest regards,

[ Parent ]
yeah I don't think by MillMan (4.00 / 1) #10 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:06:07 AM EST
she even got into politics until she was ~40 because she was busy raising kids.

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?

[ Parent ]
That's a very Republican thing to do by ad hoc (4.00 / 2) #13 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:15:32 AM EST

--
Once you get used to the idea that everything is equally true, decisions get much easier. -- johnny
[ Parent ]
I wonder by MillMan (2.00 / 0) #18 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:24:25 AM EST
if there are any feminists from the 60's / 70's in national politics. Or in Europe for that matter.

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?

[ Parent ]
Hillary? [nt] by theantix (2.00 / 0) #22 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:40:29 AM EST

____________________________________
I'm sorry, but your facts disagree with my opinion.
[ Parent ]
potentially by MillMan (2.00 / 0) #34 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:04:47 AM EST
I don't know much about her early career.

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?

[ Parent ]
San Francisco Values by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #28 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:05:33 AM EST
It's all the wheat germ and organic produce.
---
[ Parent ]
WIPO: sometimes W by ReallyEvilCanine (2.00 / 0) #12 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:11:51 AM EST
Blackjack and more.

the internet: amplifier of stupidity -- discordia

Alternatively by ReallyEvilCanine (2.00 / 0) #14 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:15:37 AM EST
Get GTA:San Andreas. There's blackjack and roulette and shitty video poker.

the internet: amplifier of stupidity -- discordia

[ Parent ]
The Little White Wedding chapel is a nice place by StackyMcRacky (2.00 / 0) #15 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:16:02 AM EST
say "hi" to Rodney for me!

Oh I won't be going anywhere near there by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #21 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:37:52 AM EST
No way does crack, hot whores, and wedding chapels go together.

Warmest regards,

[ Parent ]
along those lines by StackyMcRacky (2.00 / 0) #29 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:14:08 AM EST
you haven't mentioned the Britney split-up.  What gives?

I'd like to hear your commentary on it.

[ Parent ]
Britney split up???? by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #31 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:16:28 AM EST
Do tell!

Sweet mother of trailer-trash-with-money-and-kids-now-back-on-the-market I need to hop over to Google and get the scoop here.

Warmest regards,

[ Parent ]
i'm a little disappointed here by StackyMcRacky (2.00 / 0) #37 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:25:59 AM EST
I mean, I expected you to know all about it before now.

[ Parent ]
Aye by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #38 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 12:23:44 PM EST
I've been a little out of the pop-culture loop lately, what with all this hot naked political action going on.

You can bet I'll have an official statement on this one pertinent issue later.

Warmest regards,

[ Parent ]
How to win at roulette: by spacejack (2.00 / 0) #17 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:21:27 AM EST
1. Place a $1 bet on red or black. 2. If you win, go to step 1. Otherwise double the bet until you win again. Easy peasy. You'll be rich in no time. Right On! by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #20 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:33:18 AM EST That's easier than that blackjack stuff. Warmest regards, --Your best pal Bob [ Parent ] BZZT! by ReallyEvilCanine (2.00 / 0) #23 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:47:30 AM EST Minimum bet at most tables is$2-5, and 10 not-your-colours in a row is anything but rare (don't forget 0 and 00). You run into the house limit. Casinos love suckers who redouble to recoup. On a $2 min bet table the limit will be$200, $500 or$1000. You have less than a 50:50 chance that the next spin will be your colour ad 210 already takes you over the highest possible limit.

Also, anyone playing $2 bets doesn't have$2K to gamble. If you learn how to play, craps offers some of the best overall odds in a casino, after card-counting blackjack. I turned $60 into$450 in 15 minutes and got comped a nice buffet (with cut-in-lie privileges) and a room upgrade on that alone. I lost most of it back to them later playing Caribbean poker, but recovered again when they opened the craps tables back up.

the internet: amplifier of stupidity -- discordia

[ Parent ]
LOLOLYHBT (nt) by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #36 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:16:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Perhaps by BadDoggie (2.00 / 0) #43 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 05:19:42 PM EST
But there are people who really gamble like this. At some level it seems to make sense to people.

woof.

OMG WE'RE FUCKED! -- duxup ?

[ Parent ]
versus gambling like what? by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #75 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:13:40 AM EST
It's gambling. If your "system" is anything other than getting suckers to pay you to teach them your system, then it's just entertainment you pay for like anything else.

[ Parent ]
IIRC by bobdole (2.00 / 0) #39 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 01:40:51 PM EST
Baccarat has the best odds (playerodds) of regular casino-games. But it's also the rarest to find and is usually reserved for the highrollers.

Still a pretty fun game.
-- The revolution will not be televised.

[ Parent ]
Lowest BASE house advantage by BadDoggie (2.00 / 0) #44 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 05:26:18 PM EST
But the player has no influence on those odds. No matter how well he plays he's hoping that he'll win in a with 48.94% odds. Craps offers much more. Once I see four rolls of the dice in a row, none of which were 5-9, the Field is no longer a 5.55% edge for the house but runs slightly in my favour, and every subsequent roll pushes it further so.

woof.

OMG WE'RE FUCKED! -- duxup ?

[ Parent ]
Huh? by gazbo (4.00 / 1) #45 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:07:10 AM EST
I've never played craps, but aren't all rolls independent?

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
Yes, but the odds of a series still hold by lm (2.00 / 0) #47 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:15:42 AM EST
The odds of any single roll of the dice are the independent. But the odds of a series of rolls as a whole are not.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
lolwhat by gazbo (2.00 / 0) #48 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:44:51 AM EST
Are you saying that rolling 10 sixes in a row makes you less likely to roll an 11th six?

Or is there some form of serial nature to the game of craps that I'm unaware of?

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
Not at all by lm (2.00 / 0) #50 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 05:04:59 AM EST
I'm saying that it's far more unlikely to roll 11 sixes in a row than it is to roll 10 sixes in a row.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Well obviously by gazbo (2.00 / 0) #51 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 05:08:44 AM EST
But I fail to see how that can be used to predict gambling outcomes.  If you can give me a short, simple example of how you would do so, I'm sure it would clear up the misunderstanding on whoever's part.

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
Simple you make your bets relative to a series by lm (2.00 / 0) #52 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 05:20:35 AM EST
Determine how much to bet based on long term series.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I'm still confused by gazbo (2.00 / 0) #53 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 05:30:41 AM EST
Depending on how I read that sentence, it makes me think you're talking about either:
1. A martingale
2. Predicting future rolls based on past rolls
Neither of which will work.  If I'm misunderstanding, please could you just give a sample play of how this would actually work in practice - as in tell me a sample run of specific dice rolls and how they would affect your bets.

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
I'm suggesting that you're pov isn't high enough by lm (2.00 / 0) #54 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 05:55:06 AM EST
I'm suggesting that a bet on the 11th roll of the dice not turning out to be a six can be considered to be a bet on the entire series of rolls in addition to being considered just another roll. They are two entirely different measurements of probability.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
In which case by gazbo (2.00 / 0) #55 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:03:46 AM EST
No it can't.  In independent trials you can't use prior trials to gain knowledge about future trials.  It seems to me that contrary to what you actually said, your answer to my statement here is in fact "yes".

You will find that the probability of any number coming up is always 1/6, irrespective of whatever "series" it may be in.

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
If I may by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #56 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:09:35 AM EST
I think what he's basically stating is that odds of rolling two sixes in a row (1 in 6 followed by 1 in 6) are less than rolling a 6 then rolling either a 1,2,3,4 or 5. (1 in 6 followed by 5 in 6)

I believe in that case he's correct.

Warmest regards,

[ Parent ]
Well of course by gazbo (2.00 / 0) #58 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:16:04 AM EST
But the odds of doing a satisfying shit and then rolling a six (1 in 6) is lower than the odds of doing a satisfying shit and rolling a 1,2,3,4 or 5 (5 in 6), but I fail to see how this a) has anything to do with series of rolls, or b) can be used to make money.

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
I've never heard of a casino where ... by lm (2.00 / 0) #59 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:20:38 AM EST
... the quality of one's bowel movement is an event within a series of rolls of the dice. I could very well be wrong on this but I'm pretty certain that most casinos only consider actual rolls of the dice to be rolls of the dice.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Which is funny by gazbo (2.00 / 0) #61 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:24:34 AM EST
Because I've never heard of a dice that remembers and cares what it's previously thrown.

Perhaps they are only used at my fecal casino?

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
With no cerebal cortex, dice have no memory by lm (2.00 / 0) #63 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:29:50 AM EST
Funny how you keep interjecting irrelevent facts as if they somehow contradict something someone has said. No one is disputing that the odds of a single dice roll, when considered a single event, has a probability that does not change.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
thus by garlic (2.00 / 0) #72 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:06:35 AM EST
you cannot consider the past when betting on a single die roll. and since EVERY bet is on a single die roll, it doesn't matter that the dice have come up 6 45 times in a row prior to your throw.

[ Parent ]
Well by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #66 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:45:37 AM EST
I'm just sayin, because usually lm is wrong when he argues about stuff, and I'm pretty happy for him actually being in the right for once.

Warmest regards,

[ Parent ]
Oh, Bob, ye of little faith by lm (2.00 / 0) #78 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:32:01 AM EST
You should have more faith in me. Turns out that I'm wrong on this one unless the random number generator in perl is broken.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Damn - you win some you lose some by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #82 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:46:08 AM EST
You do know the random number generator doesn't really generate a random number.

I suppose it's likely close enough for most simulations run by hippies though.

Warmest regards,

[ Parent ]
I ran 10 million iterations by lm (2.00 / 0) #83 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 08:03:40 AM EST
But the important thing is that it got me to thinking and the math says it all. The probability of rolling eleven sixes in a row is 1/6*p where p is the probability of rolling 10 sixes in a row. So even if we're looking at the entire series, if we've got a state of affairs where we've already got ten sixes (the probability of which is p), then the odds of getting an eleventh are still 1/6.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Right by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #84 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 08:27:21 AM EST
Wait a minute, lets see.

The odds of rolling one 6 is .167.

The odds of rolling two sixes in a row would then be .167 * .167 which is .028, which is less than 1/6. No?

Warmest regards,

[ Parent ]
That is true by lm (2.00 / 0) #85 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 08:41:41 AM EST
But the question isn't what are the odds of rolling the series as a whole. The question is that  given that you've already rolled part of the series, what are the odds of completing it? If the odds of rolling two sixes is 1/6 * 1/6. The odds of rolling one more six after having rolled a six is (1/6) * [(1/6) / (1/6)] which resolves to 1/6.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
You're question begging by lm (2.00 / 0) #57 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:15:16 AM EST
If you look at the event entirely as single event, then of course you aren't looking at it in any other way. From that pov of view, of course the odds are never going to be anything else because you're explicitly stating that you're only looking at it from a single perspective.

But that doesn't address whether the series as a whole can tell you anything about the outcome. Your reasoning fails in many instances such as The Monty Hall Problem where it is inarguably the case that knowledge of the entire series confers additional knowledge on the next event. The fact of the matter is that there is more than one statistical way to look at a roll of the dice and the more ways that it is looked at, the more accurate the picture as a whole.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I disagree by gazbo (2.00 / 0) #60 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:22:12 AM EST
The fact of the matter is that there is more than one statistical way to look at a roll of the dice

Yes, for example the correct way and the incorrect way.

Let's talk about Monty Hall as you brought it up.  The reason you have to look at the whole sequence of events in the Monty Hall problem is because they are NOT independent events.  What box you pick initially affects what box he removes.  What box he removes is not random, but based on a combination of a) what box you picked and b) what box has the prize.

Contrast this with rolling a dice twice.  The outcome of the second is in no way connected to the outcome of the first, and so on for the 5th, 100th, etc.  Because they are independent events, they can (should, must) be treated as such.  The chance of throwing a 6 is 1 in 6.  It always has been, it always will be, and it doesn't care who's thrown what previously.

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
Rolls of the dice are independent events when ... by lm (2.00 / 0) #62 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:27:41 AM EST
... considered as such. But when considered in a series they are no long independent as each roll dirrectly affects the probability of the series as a whole. If this were not the case then it would be impossible to validly assign a probability to the series as a whole.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
No. No they don't. by gazbo (2.00 / 0) #64 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:32:55 AM EST
But when considered in a series they are no long independent as each roll dirrectly affects the probability of the series as a whole.

Not true at all.  This is a very common gut-feeling myth about probability, but it has no basis in reality.  If it did, you could spend hours "charging up" a dice by rolling it until you got a long series without a 6.  This dice must surely now be an almost cert for rolling a 6 next time!

Except it doesn't work like that.  I forget if you're a programmer or not; if you are, I urge you to write a short simulation program trying to confirm your hypothesis.  Let it run for a couple of million iterations and see what results.

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
Please stop putting words in my mouth by lm (2.00 / 0) #65 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:43:32 AM EST
If it did, you could spend hours "charging up" a dice by rolling it until you got a long series without a 6.  This dice must surely now be an almost cert for rolling a 6 next time!

Except I never said anything of the sort. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I'm saying that given a series of ten dice rolls where the results are a six that I think the odds of rolling another six are the the same as the odds of rolling eleven sixes in a row. But I never said that.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
No, you didn't by gazbo (2.00 / 0) #67 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:51:04 AM EST
But you did say that the odds were affected by the series.  You never quantified how much, but you said they were affected - look:

But when considered in a series they are no long independent

See, you said that.  In those words.  I am happy to argue with just that one sentence fragment if you like.  You've said that the probabilities involved in a dice roll are dependent on other dice rolls (because they are "...no long[er] independent...").

That is untrue.

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
I did say that by lm (2.00 / 0) #77 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:26:46 AM EST
But that is a far less ambitious claim than then one presented by the analogy that you layed out.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Also, I'm wrong by lm (4.00 / 2) #79 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:34:24 AM EST
I did the math. The probability of rolling eleven 6s is 1/6 times the probability of rolling ten sixes which, given ten sixes, works out to 1 in 6.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Gracious of you to say so by gazbo (2.00 / 0) #80 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:40:59 AM EST
Not sarcasm.

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
No no by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #68 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:53:40 AM EST
The odds of rolling two sixes in a row are less than rolling one six. The odds of rolling three sixes in a row are less than rolling two sixes in a row. Etc etc etc.

You're basically arguing that the odds of rolling three sixes in a row are equal to the odds of rolling 3 4's in a row, which is certainly correct, but not the argument.

Now, how all this relates to making money is beyond me. My plan is to rely on pure willy nilly happenstance to make a fortune.

Warmest regards,

[ Parent ]
Exactly by gazbo (2.00 / 0) #70 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:02:28 AM EST
Now, how all this relates to making money is beyond me.

That's because a correct view on probability shows that you can't use this info to make money.

The fact that lm is suggesting it can should be a hint that he's misunderstood something.  That's why I've asked him (twice) for a toy example of how he suggests using the info to make money.

Oh, and just for the record:

You're basically arguing that the odds of rolling three sixes in a row are equal to the odds of rolling 3 4's in a row

While I certainly agree with that assertion, it's not what I'm arguing.  I'm just arguing that dice rolls are independent events irrespective of whether you view them as part of a series of throws or not.

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
Chances versus probablility by BadDoggie (2.00 / 0) #86 Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 06:04:48 AM EST
The chance that each roll will bring a six is 1/6. However, the probability that two sixes will be thrown in a row is only 1/36 which also happens to be the chance that a shooter will throw a 12 with two dice (with a payoff of only 30:1).

In craps I'm generally betting on each roll of the dice as independent, but when it comes to the field, I'm betting on a series of throws. Let's simplify this and look at coin tosses.

No toss of a coin influences another toss. The fact that I tossed 9 heads in a row has no bearing on the tenth toss. Nevertheless, if you draw out the probability tree, you'll see that in three tosses there's only one way out of eight possible oucomes for me to me to get three heads in a row.

       H            T     /   \        /   \    H     T      H     T   / \   / \    / \   / \  H   T H   T  H  T  H   T 

The chance that I throw a head is 50:50 each time, but the probability that I throw three in a row at any given time is only 1 in 8. Therein lies the difference.

It's this series probability that I use when making Field bets. The chances of rolling a field number are a crappy 16/36 with a 2:1 payoff. The odds that a 6 through 9 is rolled is 20/36; the odds for each single roll of the dice are 55.5% that this will happen, but the probability that a series of rolls in  a row changes. There's only a 10% chance that in four rolls, all four rolls will be bad for a Field bettor. That a 6-9 comes up a fifth time in a row drops to around 5%. And so on.

The dice don't give a fuck what number was last rolled. We agree on this. But I'm not betting on any particular, single roll of the dice, I'm betting on a series of rolls, and that series -- from my perspective -- begins when I get involved.

If I were to watch a series of coin tosses and heads were being thrown, after four heads came up I'd start betting on tails because the chances of throwing five heads in a row are only 1/32, of 6 in a row 1/64, etc. The possibility of throwing heads again exists, but the probability says it won't happen.

We can test this in practice at drinks tonight.

woof.

OMG WE'RE FUCKED! -- duxup ?

[ Parent ]
I disagree by gazbo (2.00 / 0) #87 Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 06:33:53 AM EST
And would be happy to devise a physical coin-tossing game to play as an experiment.

Sadly, I will not be going to any drinks as I am stuck in the frozen Northern tundra.

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
wrong. by garlic (2.00 / 0) #71 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:04:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
what he might mean is by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #74 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:11:08 AM EST
That the payoff "odds" change depending on the sequence of rolls, not the actual probabilities. BadDoggie seems to imply that if you've rolled four in a row outside the 5-9 range then you are more likely to make money on the next roll than you would have had those previous rolls been different.

Which may be true (I also have no idea how craps is played), but suggesting that it affects overall winning probability is ludicrous, since you can't (to my knowledge) just walk up to the table at that fifth roll, plunk down your money and walk away with a profit. You have to have been sitting there betting (and risking your bet) for those previous four rolls.

Saying that craps is more profitable than baccarat because, "BASE" odds aside, you can get in some situation where you are highly likely to make money is like saying that blackjack is more profitable because once you have been dealt two 10's you are practically a shoo-in.

I find this thread immensely entertaining.

[ Parent ]
I have to confess by gazbo (4.00 / 1) #76 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:16:14 AM EST
I was beginning to fear I was undergoing a complex multi-agent Friday troll.

That the payoff "odds" change depending on the sequence of rolls, not the actual probabilities.

That is something that occurred to me, which is why in my early posts I mentioned I'd never played craps, and asked for examples to clear up the misunderstanding on whoever's part.

Now, however, I'm pretty sure he's just not got probability fully.

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
Pelosi needs to make a speech by ad hoc (4.00 / 2) #24 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:54:02 AM EST
and say something like "I know it is tempting to run the house and treat the opposition party the way things have been run up to now, but our party is the one of inclusion. In a departure from the practices of the previous regime, the Democrats will include the other party in deliberations in a spirit of bipartisanship in order to move this country forward, rather than shut them out as has been the practice up until now."

Regardless of whether she actually does it or not is irrelevant. A speech like that would certainly irritate the R's, but there's nothing they could really say since it's true.
--
Once you get used to the idea that everything is equally true, decisions get much easier. -- johnny

Hear Hear! by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #30 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:14:46 AM EST
She did say something about draining the sewage from the pond. I thought that was pretty well cutting to the chase.

Warmest regards,

[ Parent ]
She's getting a hysterectomy? [nt] by debacle (2.00 / 0) #33 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:54:35 AM EST

IF YOU HAVE TWO FIRLES THOROWNF MONEY ART SUOCIDE GIRLS STRIPPER HPW CAN YPUS :OSE?!?!?!?(elcevisides).

[ Parent ]
More speach by ad hoc (2.00 / 0) #41 Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 02:17:32 PM EST
Something like, "We're going to change the way the House does business and introduct a radical new concept of democracy where the opposition can be heard. Of course, it will take time to make these changes and undo the straightjacket the former regime created. Until we can do that, they minority party will have to live with the monster they created. But it will change."
--
Once you get used to the idea that everything is equally true, decisions get much easier. -- johnny
[ Parent ]
The B.A.D is Back! by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #46 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 03:24:02 AM EST
Woo hoo!

Oh, and if you tire of the whores, crack, and casinos, you might check out these guys. Just sayin', you know, because the combination of crack, whores, and gambling, is a short walk over a tall cliff, IYKWIM. Mr. McMurphy might not be pleased if you came back from the City of Lost Wages all strung out and with multiple social diseases. Plus you would probably be expelled from your room at the YMCA, as Christian organizations don't think highly of those who smoke crack and screw whores.

Or was that smoking whores and screwing crack? Either way, not good.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

In that case by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #49 Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:46:10 AM EST
Maybe you should fly out and be my chaperon?

That might be kinda cool. While I'm lounging at the pool eating breakfast you could be out scouting for hot whores and the best deal on crack! That would then free up more time for gambling! A true win-win!

Warmest regards,