Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Craps Discussion' started by badddoin, Feb 25, 2018.
[email protected]#cking TD...LOL
You can't (legitimately) claim something is wrong with the actual data (rolls) merely because the results didn't match what you had calculated as a probable (theoretical) expectation for a streak (40 consecutive non-7 numbers). That's exactly what you did for that small sample size (@57K rolls) and that's where I take issue.
Probability is almost always based upon sample size, because it's not often one can get correctly obtain & verify data for the population to work with. In order to validly compare actual results with probable (theoretical) expectations, there needs to be accurate collection of data, including an appropriate sample size. The greater the sample size, the higher the degree of accuracy (all other things being equal). That's the part that's missing -- we (or at least I) don't have access to billions of random rolls and even if I did, I'd probably struggle to analyze the data with the resources at my disposal.
Show me your random (e.g., non-contrived) data with 39 blocks of 40 consecutive non-7 numbers in @57K rolls that you claim should have occurred. I'm not ducking you. At this point, it's a matter of me not wanting to waste more time discussing the issue with someone who can't figure out why a sample size is relevant.
Nice post RR, I'll respond as soon as get back from my weekly "innumerate's anonymous" meeting. DUH!
A lot of end users are still using SLC 500 or PLC 5 and don't want to pay for the new hardware, software, and engineering costs to do a complete upgrade. I've found a pretty good niche market supplying replacement parts to keep the old stuff running. Some people still use SLC 150's.
WHAT about the hands that ENDED with a 2 , 3 , 11 or 12 !
ONE ROLL hands - BUT - HANDS - ALL THE SAME !
You might want to clarify your above statement to restrict it to hands in which a Point was established !
Yeah still work on a bunch of equipment that still has the slc 500 in use.
I should undoubtedly let sleeping dogs lie here, but I am unable to resist explaining what I think is crux of the matter, namely that the two sides are solving different problems.
This problem divides the total number of rolls into 40-roll blocks and counts the number of blocks containing no 7s. I'll take your word for it that a sample space of 57,549 rolls would be expected to contain 39 such blocks. So, if Roll 1 was a 7, Rolls 2-50 were non-7s, and Roll 51 was a 7 you would count neither of those blocks as being all non-7s, but in that sequence of rolls there was a streak of 49 non-7s. That is the count Steen was looking for in Post #16, and I presume he would count the given sequence as one streak of 40 or more non-7s. IMHO you're both got the right answer to the problem you solved, but Steen's problem/solution is more meaningful when comparing Mssthis1's experience to expectations.
I made an error when I "solved" the problem, that being, that I was assuming 57,549 starting sequences, rather than just 57,549 rolls. If you divide the number for an average craps roll, into 39, you would be very close to the correct answer. An average craps hand is about 3.8, or so throws, so the correct number should be very close to ten, which it was. A rare math error, but I do sometimes make one. The worst thing, was the fact that this incorrect answer, led to several nicely bundled conspiracy theories, which do not "stand" so well, after realizing what the correct answer was. The search for the "truth" goes on.
The bubble machine here tossed the first 40+ hand with no sevens I've seen on it last Saturday and it was a doozy. Unfortunately I walked in just as the counter on the screen changed from 1 to 0 on the number of sevens the past 50 roll and all the seats were of course full. Decided to watch and see how long it went anyway. It was 71 rolls, then 3 comeout sevens and a seven out on roll 78.
I should have checked to see if everyone was betting the dark side for the conspiracy theory crowd.
Wish I'd of caught that one. Timing, timing, timing.
If your machine is Aruze, it can pretty much throw what it wants, when it wants, and this is more than just my opinion. If you know how to mess with it, you can get it to go into "program verification" mode about every other roll, pretty interesting huh.
This particular machine is an Interblock. Which I prefer.
if you have found something I would suggest you STFU and make as much money as you can before they catch it and fix it which they will eventually.
There's also the weasel clause -- "Machine malfunction voids play" -- to consider. (John Robison, editor of Casino City Times, Frank Scoblete's e-rag, and I had a brief but spirited exchange over that one a while back.) Casinos are notorious for being rather poor sports when things don't work out the way they are "supposed to". Hence I suggest keeping one's use of "cheat codes" under the radar lest one find oneself in court and denied one's "winnings" to boot.
He won't. He'll continue to whine "it's not random"...."it's exploitable"....and continue to cash out vouchers for $12.67. In the process he will also lose.
In other words..the game is random, he doesn't have a clue, and he's winning and losing like any other schlump.
The narrative sounds better with "the machine will throw what it wants to throw" instead of "the dice bounce around and can land on any number based on random outcomes".
His schtick has become the old Harley narrative "I can detect bias after 6 rolls" or some other BS.
That's all it is.
I suggest that YOU STFU and get a GD brain. Just because something is very obviously fixed, does not mean that you can win. In this particular case the fix is "dynamic", meaning that it can be whatever is convenient, and is therefore very hard to exploit. It's a computer, it knows what it needs to throw, to beat you.
No, it's NOT. It's most everybody that sits down and watches and plays. AND, they are right.
I'm not whining you worthless piece of shit. I'm stating it as it is. You're a casino suck up, and would deny the obvious, even if the damned thing rolled a 13. I know that you know, what I'm saying is true, even a moron like yourself, would be able to see it.
Yeah, yeah....the software is written to account for each and every player bet, systematically calculated prior to each roll as which outcome provides the best "take" for the casino per bet. Then thru a system of air spurts, tilting floor mechanisms and a wifi rely to a chip in the dice...a series of mechanical actions take place to ensure an outcome.
Of course, it's also written into the program that some must win while others lose. Presumably the bigger bets are quashed and smaller bets are paid. I mean we don't want to take it all and look greedy
In bubble circles....this person is known as a degenerate gambler. Constantly griping about being cheated. If the system is set to "take"....from anyone, it's cheating, rigged, set.
Continue to whine duck boy...beyond trolling, it's what you do best here.
It's easy duck. If the machine is rigged and assuming the typical $400 per point max bet.. Find a partner. One of you bet table min or max on the pass and $400 on the 4. The other bets an equal amount on the DP lays the 4 for $400. Make sure you're working on the comeout. Otherwise it may toss a 4 and make things more complex. Both of you bet $270 across or whatever on the other numbers as long as it's a lower amount. The machine will vaperlock and toss no 10's and no 7's but all kinds of box numbers at the lower payout.....................