General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

Quantum cards!

Have you also seen the same card be in multiple places at once (the SAME card, not a copy of it, this is important), cards having two simultaneous values or cards tunnelling through the table? This may help your claim.

I think it happens all the time. It's just so obvious when you are multi-tabling but no-one seems to care.

For example you can have the ace and king of hearts at one table completely missing every street because they are busy busting your QQ's at another table at the same time.

The phenomena is easiest to recognize with the picture cards. Somehow their cheeky faces tell the whole story. It could be a facial expression or a glance so discrete that you just can't prove it afterwards. But you know what happened and so did they.

Maybe the software developers could end the tunnels?

@ snowboard.

But what if infinite number of hands actually had a real number - lets say 100 billion hands. ( I know it doesn't match the definition of infinite very well).

You drink green tea all day and live for 120 years dedicating every minute to grind on Stars. One day you reach the 100 billion hands and are awarded with the supernova Elite + title and the King of Pokerstars Jupiter program title.

You look at your all-in graph and it's just in harmony. You are all happy and not dead. You decide to play a few more rounds. What will happen in the next 10K hands?

So, after 3 times coming red on the roulette table, the % for black is > 50% (or 49.97% for the purists) the next turn? Like what ... like 100% for the next three turns?

Nevertheless, I think it´s quite funny that OP precisely knows how much he is ahead / below EV but he does not know the exact number of hands ... ^^

Sort of...

If you get say 10 reds in a row then the probability of your next spin in a vacuum is still 50-50 red/black, but in the context of a million spins you are getting more and more likely to be spinning red as time goes on, even if it's only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent, cause over an infinite sample you are guaranteed to spin red exactly 50% on a fair wheel.

Then again I just might be prone to the gambler's fallacy 0_0

It's not really rocket science. In PT3 the all-in EV is displayed in a graph. Money won - and money I should have won according to the All-in EV filter.

OK, sorry, wasn´t aware of that.

If you get say 10 reds in a row then the probability of your next spin in a vacuum is still 50-50 red/black, but in the context of a million spins you are getting more and more likely to be spinning red as time goes on, [...]

No, that´s wrong.

my favorite soccer team just lost. i am definitely doomed

my favorite soccer team just lost. i am definitely doomed

Guess you are with Munich.

y sorry am just very frustrated/drunk didn't mean to make fun of your bad streak. know how you feel. but

y sorry am just very frustrated/drunk didn't mean to make fun of your bad streak. know how you feel. but

NP - just read the game summary. Tough one. You are still in the CL semis though.

My soccer team actually won. Hey betman fly outta here!

Isn't this describing regression toward the mean? Quote from Wikipedia "the phenomenon that if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on a second measurement, and—a fact that may superficially seem paradoxical—if it is extreme on a second measurement, will tend to have been closer to the average on the first measurement".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

This assumes that OP actually is a +EV player and his negative sessions have been toward the negative extreme.

It regresses toward the mean but that doesn't mean the past results affect the probability of future results. If you get heads 3 times in a row and you get tails on the 4th, the distribution regressed toward the mean from flip 3 to 4 (i.e. the distribution got closer to 50% after the 4th flip than it was after the 3rd flip), but that doesn't mean the probabilty of the 4 flip wasn't 50/50.

It regresses toward the mean but that doesn't mean the past results affect the probability of future results. If you get heads 3 times in a row and you get tails on the 4th, the distribution regressed toward the mean from flip 3 to 4 (i.e. the distribution got closer to 50% after the 4th flip than it was after the 3rd flip), but that doesn't mean the probabilty of the 4 flip wasn't 50/50.

You're combining different kinds of statistics. Regression toward the mean has nothing to do with the probability of a fixed event like a coin flip. There is no 'mean' when you're talking about the outcome of a fixed event like that.

I'm assuming you know this and I think we're just talking past each other a little bit. It's just really easy to start confusing stats/probability discussion.

Maybe not one coin flip no, but any kind of sample >1 there will be a mean.

You're combining different kinds of statistics. Regression toward the mean has nothing to do with the probability of a fixed event like a coin flip. There is no 'mean' when you're talking about the outcome of a fixed event like that.

I'm assuming you know this and I think we're just talking past each other a little bit. It's just really easy to start confusing stats/probability discussion.

The mean is the expected result, 50%.

The replies in this thread might illustrate it better:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15/poker-theory/gamblers-fallacy-regression-towards-mean-661024/

The mean is the expected result, 50%.

The replies in this thread might illustrate it better:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15/poker-theory/gamblers-fallacy-regression-towards-mean-661024/

Well, it's not quite as simple as saying the mean of a coin flip is 50%. That doesn't actually make sense without a few assumptions. What we're doing is assigning values to heads and tails. In this case, heads is 0% and tails is 100%. Then, the mean would be 50%.

What we could do, then, is do 10 coin flips and add up the score. If we got 10 heads our score would be 0. We could then use the theory of regression toward the mean to make a meaningful statement about the next series of 10 coin flips. We can say that the next series will likely have a score closer to the mean than the first series.

I'm certain I'm explaining myself poorly, but again, I think we're agreeing with each other just talking past each other a bit.

Well, it's not quite as simple as saying the mean of a coin flip is 50%. That doesn't actually make sense without a few assumptions. What we're doing is assigning values to heads and tails. In this case, heads is 0% and tails is 100%. Then, the mean would be 50%.

What we could do, then, is do 10 coin flips and add up the score. If we got 10 heads our score would be 0. We could then use the theory of regression toward the mean to make a meaningful statement about the next series of 10 coin flips. We can say that the next series will likely have a score closer to the mean than the first series.

The best prediction of the next series of 10 flips would be 5 heads and 5 tails, and the probability of getting 10 heads in a row is exactly the same is it would be had we not even done the first 10 flips.