[PrecisionL]

Lobowolf, on 2011-October-30, 19:54, said:

FYP?!

FYP Final Year Project
FYP Five-Year Plan
FYP First Year Program (College of the Holy Cross)
FYP For Your Pleasure
FYP Fixed Your Post (newsgroups)
FYP Foundation Year Programme (Canada)
FYP First Year Premium (life insurance)
FYP Foundation Year Program (University of Kings College)
FYP First Year Players (Syracuse Univeristy musical theatre group)
FYP Five Year Program
FYP For Your Perusal
FYP Freight Yard Pub (North Adams, MA)
FYP Festival of Young Performers
FYP Full Year Projection

What is your question?

[bluecalm]

Well, if those players played most of their life with hand dealt boards they will never be convinced as hand dealing is biased toward more even distributions (because of imperfect shuffling and tricks in same suits being often played one after another).

[PrecisionL]

wyman, on 2011-October-11, 18:00, said:

Ok I'll bite.

Can you provide some statistics of what you've seen so far?

The most outstanding example were three 8-card suits in 36 hands (x4) in one game in September.

Most of the boards in our largest game (15 - 18) tables were hand dealt 5 - 7 times before we started using Deal Master Pro.

[Lobowolf]

PrecisionL, on 2011-October-30, 20:20, said:

FYP Final Year Project
FYP Five-Year Plan
FYP First Year Program (College of the Holy Cross)
FYP For Your Pleasure
FYP Fixed Your Post (newsgroups)
FYP Foundation Year Programme (Canada)
FYP First Year Premium (life insurance)
FYP Foundation Year Program (University of Kings College)
FYP First Year Players (Syracuse Univeristy musical theatre group)
FYP Five Year Program
FYP For Your Perusal
FYP Freight Yard Pub (North Adams, MA)
FYP Festival of Young Performers
FYP Full Year Projection

What is your question?

"Fixed Your Post"

[Lobowolf]

PrecisionL, on 2011-October-30, 22:15, said:

The most outstanding example were three 8-card suits in 36 hands (x4) in one game in September.

About 27 1/2 - 1 against, I think. Not overly damning.

[wyman]

Lobowolf, on 2011-October-31, 00:50, said:

About 27 1/2 - 1 against, I think. Not overly damning.

If this is correct (haven't checked), it's way way less damning given that they've used the deals in many club games.

[BunnyGo]

wyman, on 2011-October-31, 06:15, said:

If this is correct (haven't checked), it's way way less damning given that they've used the deals in many club games.

Yeah, I guess this should happen about once a month (for a daily game), and if it happened twice or three times that often I wouldn't be the least be surprised. The most damning "evidence" so far is Han's suggestion that spot cards have a "memory". I have not looked at the hand data produced over thousands (or millions) of trials, but I doubt the data address this issue.

It'd be interesting to see a study of correlation between successive hands.

[PrecisionL]

Lobowolf, on 2011-October-31, 00:50, said:

About 27 1/2 - 1 against, I think. Not overly damning.

8221 / 8311 / 8320: f(x) = 0.42% or 4.2 times in 1000 hands for only one 8-card suit.

f(x) 3 times = (0.0042)**3 = 73 / 10**9 or 7.3 times in 100,000,000 hands which is highly suspect.

[Edited 11/1: This calculation is for being dealt three 8-card suits in 3 deals in a row.]

Is this within 3 sigmas of the mean? We can't calculate the range without knowing the variance of the program.

This post has been edited by PrecisionL: 2011-November-02, 16:07

[BunnyGo]

PrecisionL, on 2011-October-31, 07:14, said:

8221 / 8311 / 8320: f(x) = 0.42% or 4.2 times in 1000 hands for only one 8-card suit.

f(x) 3 times = (0.0042)**3 = 73 / 10**9 or 7.3 times in 100,000,000 hands which is highly suspect.

Is this within 3 sigmas of the mean? We can't calculate the range without knowing the variance of the program.

Your 8 card suit number is just for one player. I don't know how off the top of my head how to handle the correlation between hands, but it is certainly better than 1-200 against having some player have an 8 card suit on any given deal.

[Lobowolf]

The probability of a single hand having an 8 card suit (not just 8221 8320 or 8311) is about .5%. The probability of a single deal having one is around 2%. The probability of at least 3 deals having one, with 36 deals in play, are 1-(probability of 0 deals + probability of 1 deal + probability of 2 deals). On the rough but really close approximation that each event is a 2% occurrence, that's 1-(.4832+.3550+.1268), or 3.5%.

[BunnyGo]

Lobowolf, on 2011-October-31, 10:24, said:

The probability of a single hand having an 8 card suit (not just 8221 8320 or 8311) is about .5%. The probability of a single deal having one is around 2%. The probability of at least 3 deals having one, with 36 deals in play, are 1-(probability of 0 deals + probability of 1 deal + probability of 2 deals). On the rough but really close approximation that each event is a 2% occurrence, that's 1-(.4832+.3550+.1268), or 3.5%.

Could you sketch the derivation of the 2% number?

[Lobowolf]

I pretty much cheated to keep the math simple - I took the figures for an 8-card suit out of the encyclopedia (.4668) (8221+8311+8320+8410+8500 = .1924+.1186+.1085+.0452+.0031), and I quadrupled it. So my 0.5% overstates the figure in a couple of respects - first, it's bigger than .4668% (and given that we're going to be raising things to the 36th power, maybe that's too much rounding), and second, quadrupling the 1-hand percentage isn't precise, either, as they're not independent events. The fact that one hand doesn't have an 8-card suit surely must decrease the chance that another hand in the same deal does.

However, as balanced against that, I also wasn't taking into consideration any more freakish deals, the existence of which would further my main point - that the reported occurrence wasn't that unusual. For instance, if you add in the possibility of a nine-card suit, the probability that will see such a long (8 or 9) suit on a particular hand goes *over* .5% (and that says nothing of the 10-, 11-, 12-, and 13-card suits).

I wasn't aiming for precision, but I don't think that the 'pure' numbers would lead to a different conclusion - what happened at the table wasn't all *that* odd.

[BunnyGo]

Lobowolf, on 2011-October-31, 11:18, said:

I pretty much cheated to keep the math simple - I took the figures for an 8-card suit out of the encyclopedia (.4668) (8221+8311+8320+8410+8500 = .1924+.1186+.1085+.0452+.0031), and I quadrupled it. So my 0.5% overstates the figure in a couple of respects - first, it's bigger than .4668% (and given that we're going to be raising things to the 36th power, maybe that's too much rounding), and second, quadrupling the 1-hand percentage isn't precise, either, as they're not independent events. The fact that one hand doesn't have an 8-card suit surely must decrease the chance that another hand in the same deal does.

However, as balanced against that, I also wasn't taking into consideration any more freakish deals, the existence of which would further my main point - that the reported occurrence wasn't that unusual. For instance, if you add in the possibility of a nine-card suit, the probability that will see such a long (8 or 9) suit on a particular hand goes *over* .5% (and that says nothing of the 10-, 11-, 12-, and 13-card suits).

I wasn't aiming for precision, but I don't think that the 'pure' numbers would lead to a different conclusion - what happened at the table wasn't all *that* odd.

Ok, that's about what I'd done too, but I was hoping you'd done the precision.

I couldn't tell how much error was introduced that way.

[hrothgar]

BunnyGo, on 2011-October-31, 12:12, said:

Ok, that's about what I'd done too, but I was hoping you'd done the precision.

I couldn't tell how much error was introduced that way.

Too brain fried to work out the conditional probabilities analytically however I coded up a quick Monte Carlo simulation for length >= 8 in at least one of the four hands.
I ended up with 1.978%

Please note: this sim calculates the % of 8+ card suits.
Also, if a single deal includes two 8+ card hands it will only count once.

I attached the MATLAB code for anyone who cares

clear all
clc

Rank = zeros(52,1);
Rank = nominal(Rank);
Deal = dataset(Rank);

Deal.Rank(1:4,1) = 'A';
Deal.Rank(5:8,1) = 'K';
Deal.Rank(9:12,1) = 'Q';
Deal.Rank(13:16,1) = 'J';
Deal.Rank(17:20,1) = '10';
Deal.Rank(21:24,1) = '9';
Deal.Rank(25:28,1) = '8';
Deal.Rank(29:32,1) = '7';
Deal.Rank(33:36,1) = '6';
Deal.Rank(37:40,1) = '5';
Deal.Rank(41:44,1) = '4';
Deal.Rank(45:48,1) = '3';
Deal.Rank(49:52,1) = '2';

Suit = zeros(52,1);
Suit = nominal(Suit);

for i = 0 : 12
    
    Suit(4*i + 1) = 'S';
    Suit(4*i + 2)  = 'H';
    Suit(4*i + 3) = 'D';
    Suit(4*i + 4) = 'C';
    
end

Deal.Suit = Suit

%% shuffle

simlength = 100000;
count = 0;
length_criteria = 8;

for i = 1:simlength
    
    index = randperm(52);
    Deal = Deal(index,:);
    
    foo1 = summary(Deal(1:13,2));
    foo2 = summary(Deal(14:26,2));
    foo3 = summary(Deal(27:39,2));
    foo4 = summary(Deal(40:end,2));
    
    if max(foo1.Variables.Data.Counts) >= length_criteria
        count = count +1;
    elseif max(foo2.Variables.Data.Counts) >= length_criteria
        count = count +1; 
    elseif max(foo3.Variables.Data.Counts) >= length_criteria
        count = count +1; 
    elseif max(foo4.Variables.Data.Counts) >= length_criteria
        count = count +1;   
        
    end
    
end

count /1000

[kfay]

BunnyGo, on 2011-October-31, 07:09, said:

Yeah, I guess this should happen about once a month (for a daily game), and if it happened twice or three times that often I wouldn't be the least be surprised. The most damning "evidence" so far is Han's suggestion that spot cards have a "memory". I have not looked at the hand data produced over thousands (or millions) of trials, but I doubt the data address this issue.

It'd be interesting to see a study of correlation between successive hands.

April Fools?!?!

Seriously, idk how many of Han's posts I've seen replies like this for.

I thought it was blatantly obvious that Han was joking. Of course you can find whatever pattern you want for a series of 5 deals. Give me 32 deals and I'll find some pattern to connect all the hands, I guarantee you. I also don't think Han spends his spare time looking through deals to see which hand holds the 5 of clubs.

Maybe you're being sarcastic too. In that case... well played.

[Trinidad]

hrothgar, on 2011-October-31, 13:36, said:

Too brain fried to work out the conditional probabilities analytically however I coded up a quick Monte Carlo simulation for length >= 8 in any of the four hands.
I ended up with 1.978%

Please note: this sim calculates the % of 8+ card suits.
Also, if a single deal includes two 8+ card hands it will only count once.

I attached the MATLAB code for anyone who cares

What a fine example of circular reasoning: You use a random deal generator to check whether a random deal generator delivers the correct amount of 8 card suits. It is like saying that snow is white (or red) because it has the same color as snow which we know is white (or red).

If people won't accept that the random generator in Deal Master Pro is good enough how are you going to convince them that it is by using a random generator in Matlab?

And most likely, your random generator in Matlab is not better than the random generator Deal Master Pro uses.

Rik

[hrothgar]

Trinidad, on 2011-November-01, 02:10, said:

If people won't accept that the random generator in Deal Master Pro is good enough how are you going to convince them that it is by using a random generator in Matlab?

And most likely, your random generator in Matlab is not better than the random generator Deal Master Pro uses.

Rik

Out of curiosity, do you have even the slightest clue

1. What MATLAB is?
2. What random number generators are used inside the product?

I'm only asking because from the outside looking in, your comments look astoundingly ignorant (Even by the standards to which we are accustomed on this forum)

In any case, I don't know what RNG Deal Master Pro uses, not do I know how they implement their hand generation algorithm.
I suspect that their implementation is very different than the one I used.

With this said and done, having multiple independent implementations deliver consistent results is often seen as a good thing...

[wyman]

Gah, someone just compute the probability of an 8+ card suit appearing in a hand directly. This should not be that hard. I will try to do so if I get some time today.

[PrecisionL]

wyman, on 2011-November-01, 08:05, said:

Gah, someone just compute the probability of an 8+ card suit appearing in a hand directly. This should not be that hard. I will try to do so if I get some time today.

Read the postings, it has been done already. 0.42% if you ignore 8-4 and 8-5 variations

[wyman]

PrecisionL, on 2011-November-01, 08:13, said:

Read the postings, it has been done already. 0.42% if you ignore 8-4 and 8-5 variations

Please excuse that my comment was imprecise.

I meant (and I thought this was clear): someone please compute directly the probability of an 8+ card suit appearing in a _deal_.

Also, there's no reason to ignore 8-4 or 8-5 variations. And we should include the (small) probability of 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 card suits appearing in a deal as well.

edit: this should be just a big PIE but I think there are some subtleties I ran into when I tried to do it in 2 seconds.