Glad someone is on the right track (in my initial reply I put frequency at 1 in 2000-3000, allowing a range of potential hold penalties).
It's threads like these that warm the cockles of my heart (extending faith that a decent number of attractive plays will continue to exist because some "diamonds in the rough" will continue to be overlooked because of preconceptions).
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <greeklandjohnny@...> wrote :
Ok, I'm going to do something that doesn't happen anywhere near enough on this site. I'm going to lay out all the conditions for a statement then look at the results.
The original poster said that he went 0 for 50 holding KJs in deuces wild. Here's what that would look like:
Game : 9/4/4 deuces wild 50 play ( I picked a deuces wild flavor. It shouldn't matter too much for this case)
Event: dealt KJ suited ( discards weren't specified, but should not matter too much)
Result: no winning hand
Math
p( non winning hand from KJs) = 13802/16215 = 0.85119 (from Winpoker)
p( non winning hand from KJs on all 50 hands) = 0.85119^50 = 0.00031714 or 1 in 3153 ( from Bayes, so at least you got that part right)
This is roughly the same probability as seeing red come up 11 times in a row at roulette.
So, from a sample size of 1, not having set the conditions or hypothesis beforehand, a 1 in 3153 result becomes conclusive proof of cheating? You should never walk into a casino again. And you saying 'believe me' when you lay out a nonsensical argument doesn't help your claim.
Pretty stupid way to cheat. You take a low paying event ( KJs is worth 1.7 coins per line) and force a rare occurrence ( no winning hands). So, a casino sets up a high risk of detection event for a low payout? Casinos do some stupid things but this isn't on the list.
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment