Zeta Reticuli Star System United States Member #30470 January 17, 2006 10356 Posts Offline

Posted: September 3, 2010, 6:48 pm - IP Logged

Yeah, good point, but I still would't get in such a game.

I forget exactly how it goes but there''s a bar room game of Solitaire for money, you pay $52 for the deck and then try to win it back, and more. Guess who usually wins that one!

Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.

United States Member #75358 June 1, 2009 5345 Posts Offline

Posted: September 3, 2010, 8:55 pm - IP Logged

But what would happen when the chosen number containing the remaining ones were 2 out of 3 in the first and seconds throws?

Also, How would the bet be generated when it could've been based on an average probability theory not actual construct of a typical set?

Whether the 4 number selection was only 2/3 of the chosen 4 dice that remain, or whether the simulation was in fact a correct combination wouldn't matter because I'd rather have the ability to introduce the randomness delusion theory exceptions to the rule, and then deem it debatable.

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: September 3, 2010, 9:53 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by joker17 on September 3, 2010

But what would happen when the chosen number containing the remaining ones were 2 out of 3 in the first and seconds throws?

Also, How would the bet be generated when it could've been based on an average probability theory not actual construct of a typical set?

Whether the 4 number selection was only 2/3 of the chosen 4 dice that remain, or whether the simulation was in fact a correct combination wouldn't matter because I'd rather have the ability to introduce the randomness delusion theory exceptions to the rule, and then deem it debatable.

joker17,

Did you read the discussion linked to in the original post?

This isn't about a real dice game played for money.

It's about math and probability, which all gamblers should know cold!

--Jimmy4164

I understand that it's not about a real dice game, but my point was that the die which was the opposing picks retained prior to the elevation of the data dealing with variance, was the one that the probability component devised, and not the additional sets which can be determined by the factors preceding the nontransitive dice, but not to be confused with the magic square properties written about earlier when the proposal was made to triumph in 10 games or less.

In other words ,beating the second die, twice as much but not less than 12 times can be misconstrued to look as if the mistaken assumption was determined by the association with the same set of the 3 transitive dice paradox, which also constitutes a 4.7 degree of violation assesment when dealing with such paradoxes. Although, these equations may show the skewed elevations within the deviances soley based on the properties within the subset parameters of 5.0 or higher. But it is highly unlikely that they will.

Furthermore, the fourth die is 3 times as likely as the second and 1st die, to produce similar paradoxes when the receding rows of numbers prior to the original sets put forth in congruence, which BTW, was determined as invalid, therefore no amount of statistcal provision was calculated by the study to provide sufficient mean numbers and variants to come to the conclusion mentioned in the second paragraph above.

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: September 4, 2010, 12:49 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by joker17 on September 4, 2010

I understand that it's not about a real dice game, but my point was that the die which was the opposing picks retained prior to the elevation of the data dealing with variance, was the one that the probability component devised, and not the additional sets which can be determined by the factors preceding the nontransitive dice, but not to be confused with the magic square properties written about earlier when the proposal was made to triumph in 10 games or less.

In other words ,beating the second die, twice as much but not less than 12 times can be misconstrued to look as if the mistaken assumption was determined by the association with the same set of the 3 transitive dice paradox, which also constitutes a 4.7 degree of violation assesment when dealing with such paradoxes. Although, these equations may show the skewed elevations within the deviances soley based on the properties within the subset parameters of 5.0 or higher. But it is highly unlikely that they will.

Furthermore, the fourth die is 3 times as likely as the second and 1st die, to produce similar paradoxes when the receding rows of numbers prior to the original sets put forth in congruence, which BTW, was determined as invalid, therefore no amount of statistcal provision was calculated by the study to provide sufficient mean numbers and variants to come to the conclusion mentioned in the second paragraph above.

joker17,

Mr Peterson's description over at MathTrek makes a lot more sense to me than yours. Of course, this could be a deficiency in my ability to comprehend [your] analysis. Are you going to be one of those members forced to craft a set of the dice so you can conduct the simulation yourself before you will be convinced? On 2nd thought, based on what you wrote above, maybe I shouldn't jump to the conclusion that you are not convinced!

United States Member #75358 June 1, 2009 5345 Posts Offline

Posted: September 4, 2010, 3:23 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on September 4, 2010

joker17,

Mr Peterson's description over at MathTrek makes a lot more sense to me than yours. Of course, this could be a deficiency in my ability to comprehend [your] analysis. Are you going to be one of those members forced to craft a set of the dice so you can conduct the simulation yourself before you will be convinced? On 2nd thought, based on what you wrote above, maybe I shouldn't jump to the conclusion that you are not convinced!

--Jimmy4164

I really can't explain it any clearer than the above explanations. But here are the equations I used to determine the problems facing the variance degradation and paradoxal curve coefficient flux parameters.

Unfortunately for those who DO NOT TRUST Probability Theory, they will be forced to actually construct a set of

these dice, so they can do the simulation themselves, until they are convinced!

All!

Joker17 is having some fun here, but I really thought there would be sincere interest in this Paradoxical Phenomenon.

If you have aspirations of logically deducing a method to predict lottery draws, this is the kind of challenge you should be accepting in an effort to hone your skills!