Advanced statistics.

Originally posted by shatteredaces
That is not correct, you are thinking only of a singular deck , yes 4/52 or 1/13. I understand this, and I am telling you that this can not apply to multiple pre-shuffled decks, you are not considering the pre-shuffle and set sequences .

Hey, shatteredaces,
I'm glad that you're finally beginning to see the light. Yes, I am not considering the pre-shuffle and set sequences, because mathematically I may not.

We are 11 pages in to this discussion.
You went way more than that on badscience.net.
You did heaps more on pocketfives.

I'm guessing that you've also posted this "theory" on other sites as well.

As so many people in so many places have tried to explain to you, One and only one deck can be considered when calculating the probabilities of a single hand.

The probability of getting the same hand, or the same card or whatever over multiple hands is different. However it depends only on the number of hands you are considering, and these multiple hand odds are the same regardless of whether you pre-shuffle multiple decks or shuffle the same one multiple times.

Please -- no more analogies, diagrams or nonsensical examples.
Please stick with established mathematics. If you can find a reference that supports your theory please provide a link that we can all check.

You claim that odds differ between pre-shuffled decks and a single deck shuffled multiple times.
Please provide a link to a recognized authoritative article that supports this claim.
Please do not copy/paste the article itself without the source reference.

Until you post that link, please post nothing else.

We've all tried to be as patient as possible, but you have steadfastly refused to listen.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the other posters in this thread for their restraint, and thank them for keeping the tone civil and supportive.

Some of the other threads I've read on other forums trashed you unmercifully, shatteredaces, and I'm somewhat surprised you brought the same theory to yet another forum without first verifying it.

All the best -- I look forward to your link,
VS

So, shatteredaces, did you find a problem with my proof?

Originally posted by redskwerl
So, shatteredaces, did you find a problem with my proof?

I've asked him to refrain from posting unless he can provide a link to an authoritative reference that supports his theories.

I strongly doubt that such a page exists.

Cheers,
VS

This happened in the super high roller cash game yesterday.
I was watching the stream when it happened.

Even in live games, they can apparently deal from the y-axis

Note: This isn't a video

The casino's cash game director was interviewed and said a few things of interest.
 It is rare, but it does happen.
 The most likely cause is that the old deck was not properly cleared before the new one was opened. I thought it odd that a dealer would not notice a card on the table, nor any of the players.
 The only action take was to void the current hand. All previous hands dealt from that deck stand.

Cheers,
VS

i think you are a troll but see if you can get around this.
you have made the calculation for a pocket pair. try to make the calculation for a non pocket pair. If you havent made any mistakes in the caculations the probabilities of all pocket pairs + non pocket pairs should add up to a 100%

Just a note about the hand with two Q♣: on the flop.
In yesterday's broadcast, it was mentioned that this was a "manufacturing error" not a dealer mistake.

VS

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
Just a note about the hand with two Q♣: on the flop.
In yesterday's broadcast, it was mentioned that this was a "manufacturing error" not a dealer mistake.

VS

Does this mean it was a fresh opened deck, and this is the first hand?
and also in that case the dealer does not spread face up before turning and mixing?

Elsewise it is hard to rule out player involvement ?

BTW I have not seen this happen online yet
:-)

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
Just a note about the hand with two Q♣: on the flop.
In yesterday's broadcast, it was mentioned that this was a "manufacturing error" not a dealer mistake.

Must be a coincidence then having a professional magician and a known "advantage seeker/dealer communicator" on table at the same time.

There is also the temporal displacement with the edge sorter turning over the Q♣: earlier in following an all in against AK

I do not know how decks of cards specifically are manufactured.
However I worked in the printing industry for 15 years, so I have a small idea of how it likely works.

(comma is a 1000 separator)
They would need to print multiple copies of each card.
So 100,000 A♠:, 100,000 K♠: etc all in some form of machine.
The machine builds decks by taking 1 card from each stack in turn and stacking them up in order.

The decks would then be trimmed.
They would then be weighed, or checked for height. Each test could happen automatically with high speed.
Either test would catch any decks with duplicate cards or missing cards, but it could not detect errors in which there are exactly the same number of extra cards as there are missing ones.

I also imagine that there is a quality control process that randomly checks decks.

It is also conceivable that a machine similar to a banknote counter could fan through an entire complete deck and catch any mis-collations.

So I can see how it would be a rare occurrence.

An thought on trimming. Remember the edge-sorting controversy a year or two ago when Phil Ivey was accused of cheating by a casino in the UK? He was accused of using the edge imperfections in the design of the cards' backs to gain an edge.

These edge imperfections would be impossible if the back of the deck was a uniform colour.

So why do they all have some sort of design on them?

hmmmm,
VS

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
hmmmm,
VS

I worked within manufacturing a long time Vorpal, mistakes might be rare, but you can guarantee something fks up on a regular basis :-)

So the scenario "manufactures error" is possible quite but not really verifiable, given they apparently don't check the decks themselves before play.
In my home game we use two new decks, and open them on the table, but I don't know if the casino did this on this occasion, remembering of course than our local casino staff was involved in various scams including deck stacking recently :-(
Scenario "card swap" is very possible imo, and I ain't worth suing so I would say better than plausible given how much cheating goes on by players in casino's, known cheater at the table.

The dark horse in question maintains a posture with his bare arms crossed over the rail, the perfect position to muck one over the rail and pass a previously palmed card. Q♣:, said player shows and mucks Q♣:, extra Q♣: turns up.

Anyways
1. Online shuffling
2. Mechanical production
31/2 Live shuffling

Regards Michael

Message to Vorpal.

Hello, I have posted to explain that I am unable to provide a link, I have been unable to confirm my maths or theory with science forums. I do have new maths now and can explain it far easier, however I am sure you do not want to here this without confirmation of a peer viewed theory. I have spent most of my time since I lasted posted here trying to prove my idea elsewhere.

For anyone interested in probability I will provide links to the discussion which I will probably not be engaging in again.

here - http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=59860.0

and here - http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=57749.0

Mods please remove if you don't want the links there, and I thank you for your time sir, it look's like after a long 5-6 years I have failed to show what I set out to achieve.

There is a thin line between persistence and obsession. You say that the RNG is not random, and you failed to prove it in 5-6 years. If it truly is not a random one, all you have to do is to play 100K hands and see if the distribution of cards (1st and 2nd) is flawed. You could even use the help of others to collect the database of 100K dealt hands in just a day or two.

If that shows some interesting results, then you can start to dig deeper.

P.S. If you think that 100K hands is not sufficient, there are easy ways to get 100M dealt hands in few days. I am sure that any flaws in randomness is shown if you look at the sample size of 100 million dealt hands.

Originally posted by shatteredaces
Hello, I have posted to explain that I am unable to provide a link, I have been unable to confirm my maths or theory with science forums.[1] I do have new maths now and can explain it far easier[2] , however I am sure you do not want to here this without confirmation of a peer viewed theory. I have spent most of my time since I lasted posted here trying to prove my idea elsewhere.

Hi, shatteredaces,
I've marked 2 places in your post that I think need commenting.
[1] It is understandable that you are unable to confirm your ideas in science forums. Assuming that the people in those forums have a basic knowledge of statistics, they would recognize the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.
[2] New math won't help. As far as I can tell, your math is fine. The problem lies only with your underlying assumption. The assumption you make is that the arrangement of cards in one pre-shuffled deck has an influence on future pre-shuffled decks -- or rather that which deck is selected has some bearing on randomness. What everyone in at least 4 forums has tried to explain to you is that each deck is independent of all other decks. You have failed to realize this.

In all fairness, it may be the hundreds of forum members who are all wrong. I urge you to take a couple of introductory courses in probability and statistics. Google "Coursera" which offers free university-level courses in a wide variety of subjects. There may be other such open universities, and I'd encourage others to suggest some. I have taken a few courses from Coursera and found them valuable. Note that you do not get a degree or university credit from these courses.

Once you actually know the basics you might even see the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.

[moderator mode]I was extremely pleased to see that the replies you got at PokerStrategy.com were considerably more polite that those received elsewhere.[/moderator mode]

Do you do any computer programming? If so, it should be a fairly simple task to write a script that generates the 100 million hands that Kyyberi suggested.
If you program in C there are existing libraries that can deal and evaluate hands.

You would need to write two scripts actually. In the first, each hand is dealt and evaluated individually. In the second, a number of hands are dealt, then 1 is evaluated, then another 1 or two chosen randomly from the others. When each scenario is complete, you compare the distribution of cards.

They will be slightly different. This is where statistics comes in. There is a test to determine of the difference is statistically significant. You can read about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance. You will need to apply this test to your results.

When I passed 100K holdem hands, I checked the number of times I had been dealt each combination of hole cards. They were all roughly equal. I no longer have the data. If I remember correctly 92o was the most common it had been dealt to me 5 times more than expected. Most other hands were the expected value +/- 2

I wish you all the best in your continued search.
VS

Originally posted by VorpalF2F

[moderator mode]I was extremely pleased to see that the replies you got at PokerStrategy.com were considerably more polite that those received elsewhere.[/moderator mode]

Thank you for the solid advice, and a big thank you to this forum for the adult responses rather than childish behaviour.
I can not write computer scripts and will probably just give up on the idea that only a few people even understand, to clarify to some, this theory was never about the RNG or randomness of the cards, it was about choice, and does receiving a random deck from a queue alter probability compared to using one deck re-shuffled.
People simply could not understand that X is not equal to Y .
Thank you for your time, I may stick around this forum and maybe discuss some poker some time, or make a comment on the odd thread , if that is ok with the Mods?

P.s I am just going to win at poker now and stop experimenting.

Hi, shatteredaces,
Of course you're welcome!

and best of luck with the poker!
VS