New Jersey United States Member #99032 October 18, 2010 1439 Posts Offline

Posted: September 3, 2011, 11:14 am - IP Logged

Stack wrote "If the last three results were 3 heads and we know each side has a 50/50 chance of happening, shouldn't we logically assume one of the next three flips will be tails and eliminate 2 of the 8 chances (3 heads and 0 tails) and now have a 1 in 6 chance?"

We can't assume one of the next three flips will be tails. Plus, 3 heads and 0 tails are the same thing.

Why would you eliminate it? Just because it happened doesn't make it less likely to happen again.

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7302 Posts Offline

Posted: September 7, 2011, 12:31 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on September 3, 2011

Stack wrote "If the last three results were 3 heads and we know each side has a 50/50 chance of happening, shouldn't we logically assume one of the next three flips will be tails and eliminate 2 of the 8 chances (3 heads and 0 tails) and now have a 1 in 6 chance?"

We can't assume one of the next three flips will be tails. Plus, 3 heads and 0 tails are the same thing.

Why would you eliminate it? Just because it happened doesn't make it less likely to happen again.

"Why would you eliminate it? Just because it happened doesn't make it less likely to happen again."

My point was previous results can be used as a starting point. I was talking about the next three outcomes and since there are 8 possible outcomes, the odds against 3 heads being the results are 7 - 1. By knowing 3 heads were the results of the three previous outcomes, the odds against six consecutive heads are 63 to 1.

The "0 tails" was a typo and should have been 3 tails. The odds against 3 heads or three tails being the next 3 outcomes are 3 to 1 regardless of the previous results.

New Jersey United States Member #99032 October 18, 2010 1439 Posts Offline

Posted: September 9, 2011, 8:12 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on September 7, 2011

"Why would you eliminate it? Just because it happened doesn't make it less likely to happen again."

My point was previous results can be used as a starting point. I was talking about the next three outcomes and since there are 8 possible outcomes, the odds against 3 heads being the results are 7 - 1. By knowing 3 heads were the results of the three previous outcomes, the odds against six consecutive heads are 63 to 1.

The "0 tails" was a typo and should have been 3 tails. The odds against 3 heads or three tails being the next 3 outcomes are 3 to 1 regardless of the previous results.

The odds of 6 consecutive heads are 1 in 64, true, but the odds of 3 heads after 3 heads already came up are 1 in 8. It makes no difference that the first three were heads. In fact the odds of getting any 6 outcomes in a row are 1 in 64, because there are exactly 64 possibilities.

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7302 Posts Offline

Posted: September 10, 2011, 10:46 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on September 9, 2011

The odds of 6 consecutive heads are 1 in 64, true, but the odds of 3 heads after 3 heads already came up are 1 in 8. It makes no difference that the first three were heads. In fact the odds of getting any 6 outcomes in a row are 1 in 64, because there are exactly 64 possibilities.

I clearly said the odds against 3 consecutive heads is still 7 to 1 regardless of the previous outcomes. If a player believes the next three outcomes will be 3 heads and bets one unit three consecutive times, they can get a 3 to 1 return. If a player parlays his winnings, they get the true 7 to 1 return. It's called playing streaks and a common Baccarat strategy.

Other than the typo I made (0 tails), you seem to be agreeing with me though you're expressing it differently.

NASHVILLE, TENN United States Member #33372 February 20, 2006 1044 Posts Offline

Posted: September 11, 2011, 12:36 pm - IP Logged

Ok, I read the first three results from your link. In one, I found the authors used "P" to denote probability and then proceeded with an equation. So far so good

However, it is precisely the "P" in which we are interested. The authors guess at a value to "P". We want a good reason to know what that value might be for the next draw. Hence all the "systems" posted here. No mathematician will explore ways of determining "P". We, on the other hand, will go where angels fear to tread.

New Jersey United States Member #99032 October 18, 2010 1439 Posts Offline

Posted: September 12, 2011, 1:28 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on September 10, 2011

I clearly said the odds against 3 consecutive heads is still 7 to 1 regardless of the previous outcomes. If a player believes the next three outcomes will be 3 heads and bets one unit three consecutive times, they can get a 3 to 1 return. If a player parlays his winnings, they get the true 7 to 1 return. It's called playing streaks and a common Baccarat strategy.

Other than the typo I made (0 tails), you seem to be agreeing with me though you're expressing it differently.

Oh ok, I misread what you were saying. I thought you were trying to say that you shouldn't continue to bet on heads because the odds of it coming are then 1 in 64, which isn't true.

New Jersey United States Member #99032 October 18, 2010 1439 Posts Offline

Posted: September 12, 2011, 10:13 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by GASMETERGUY on September 11, 2011

Ok, I read the first three results from your link. In one, I found the authors used "P" to denote probability and then proceeded with an equation. So far so good

However, it is precisely the "P" in which we are interested. The authors guess at a value to "P". We want a good reason to know what that value might be for the next draw. Hence all the "systems" posted here. No mathematician will explore ways of determining "P". We, on the other hand, will go where angels fear to tread.

Mathemeticians do have a way of determining P.

If there are 10 balls in a tube, and they all weigh the same, and one is being chosen by a random process such as a ball drop, then the P = 1/10, 10% etc. The other way that they determine P is by running a test on it, seeing the result, over thousands and thousands of draws, and using the results as an approximation of P.

There was a family in the 70s that did this with roulette wheels, and found bias numbers, and took advantage of it. They turned the equivalent of 2,200 dollars into about 1.5 million in a couple of years, just betting on the numbers that after thousands upon thousands of draws, showed a P value higher than expected by the odds the Casino assumed, they only played numbers that, after thousands of spins, showed a P value better than 1/35, which is they payout.

New Jersey United States Member #99032 October 18, 2010 1439 Posts Offline

Posted: September 12, 2011, 11:09 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on September 12, 2011

Mathemeticians do have a way of determining P.

If there are 10 balls in a tube, and they all weigh the same, and one is being chosen by a random process such as a ball drop, then the P = 1/10, 10% etc. The other way that they determine P is by running a test on it, seeing the result, over thousands and thousands of draws, and using the results as an approximation of P.

There was a family in the 70s that did this with roulette wheels, and found bias numbers, and took advantage of it. They turned the equivalent of 2,200 dollars into about 1.5 million in a couple of years, just betting on the numbers that after thousands upon thousands of draws, showed a P value higher than expected by the odds the Casino assumed, they only played numbers that, after thousands of spins, showed a P value better than 1/35, which is they payout.

Just want to correct my mistake, the P value would have had to be more than 1/36, and they only played the top X numbers (I think it was 2, but I'm not sure, in any case, they only played numbers that came up significantly more often in the long run)

homeland security United States Member #82523 November 15, 2009 98 Posts Offline

Posted: September 16, 2011, 10:09 pm - IP Logged

i believe i found a different math to decipher the lottery however, it will take too long to crunch all the combinations, to be honest it will take my computer about a 1000 years due to the speed of my quad core computer. The sad thing is the technology doesn't exist, to express my calculations. But it is a way to crack this stuff.

United States Member #5599 July 13, 2004 1184 Posts Offline

Posted: September 17, 2011, 12:57 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by thinktank on September 16, 2011

i believe i found a different math to decipher the lottery however, it will take too long to crunch all the combinations, to be honest it will take my computer about a 1000 years due to the speed of my quad core computer. The sad thing is the technology doesn't exist, to express my calculations. But it is a way to crack this stuff.

Hi,

How about a little more detail. *S*

You are a slave to the choices you have made. jk

Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.