The secret to success

[MARCPELLETIER]

Ugrant,

But how does the dice "remember" the past roll?

Humans have a memory system that allow them to register past information and "informs" them to what to do in the future.

Computers too have a memory system, so I will grant you the possibility (however denied by Strat conceptors) that the engine decides to tweek a little bit the result in favor of more variable results.

But where you're playing the dice, after you roll a 1-column, how do the dice remember that information. What part of their constitution allow them to change their upcoming behaviour?

[ugrant]

Marcus - it's not about memory or behaviour modification. It's about odds (or probabilities, pick your term).

Each column has 1/6 of a chance of being rolled, meaning that there is also a 5/6 chance that the same column will not be rolled. If I leave it right there, everyone would be happy and the folks slinging mud at me would yell, "hallejulah, you get it, it didn't take 5 years."

But my follow-on argument is about same column repetition, where the chance to replicate a same column roll is 1/6 (same as rolling any other column, yes, I get that). But the chance to not replicate that column is 5/6 or 83.3% vs the 16.7% to replicate the column.

So during the follow-on roll, the manager who has his desired column on the same number as the last roll has a 16.7% chance of achieving that roll and a 83.3% chance of not achieving that roll. That will not change, he gets his column or he doesn't (and the odds favor he won't).

The manager who varies his column as to not duplicate the previous roll has a 16.7% of missing outright (the roll duplicates) or a 83.3% chance that the roll does not duplicate. Here's where it gets murky and folks start making up ways to call me an idiot: since the roll did not duplicate there are now five columns left that it can roll and the manager that did not duplicate his columns has a 1/5 chance of being correct, or 20%.

That's an 83.3% chance of increasing the odds to 20% of getting the desired column. Voorhits correctly analyzed that 20% of 83.3% is 16.7%, same odds as 1/6, but that's the odds at the start of the roll. If the roll does not duplicate the previous column, the 83.3% is achieved and the odds are 20% for the manager who varied his columns (while the manager who has duplicate columns has already moved on, his 16.7% missed).

[voovits]

[quote:250caa7000="ugrant"]
That's an 83.3% chance of increasing the odds to 20% of getting the desired column. Voorhits correctly analyzed that 20% of 83.3% is 16.7%, same odds as 1/6, but that's the odds at the start of the roll. If the roll does not duplicate the previous column, the 83.3% is achieved and the odds are 20% for the manager who varied his columns (while the manager who has duplicate columns has already moved on, his 16.7% missed).[/quote:250caa7000]

But as Voorhits continues to note:

You are throwing up 2 scenarios here.

Scenario A: player with back-to-back identical best columns has a 100% chance at the 16.7% chance to roll his good column

Scenario B: Player with different best columns has an 83.3 chance to have a 20% shot at his good column, and he also has a 16.7% chance to have a 0% shot at his good column.

Nobody here does not understand what you are saying. It is perfectly clear, at least to me.
What I and everyone else is arguing with is that Scenarios A and B are essentially identical.
If you break it down and look at the bottom line, the bottom line will show that the odds you are giving yourself in both scenarios are exactly the same: 1/6 or 16.7%.
You are breaking down scenario B into 2 segments. You acknowledge the existence of the first segment, which is the 16.7% chance of rolling the same column, but you fail to take the handicap it puts on the second segment into consideration, lowing the overall 20% chance that the second segment gives you, back down to 16.7%.

[coyote303]

If you have never seen the Mentalist on TV, I highly recommend you give it a try. It is the only show that I will watch reruns for. Some episodes I have seen three times now. Season 2 premieres September 24. I love the lead character played by Simon Baker, and I am in love with Robin Tunney.

What does this have to do with the topic? I am seeing too many reruns on this thread and, except for the Mentalist, I don't like reruns. Here's a few of our recent episodes:

1. "The New Math" (where 83.3% of 20% = 20%)
2. "Restricted Choice Applies to Dice"
3. "Nobody is Answering my Arguments"

There's more, but those are some of the "season's" highlights.

Plot Summaries:
1. 83.3% of 20% = 16.7% no matter how much someone wants that phantom 3.3% edge (which, in baseball, would be huge if it existed).
2. Restricted choice does not apply to dice rolls in SOM.
3. Ugrant's arguments have all been answered multiple times by multiple people.

I suppose if this thread takes a new, interesting twist, I could get sucked back in. However, "smart money" is betting against that possibility.

Coyote

[The Turtle]

The Mentalist is a rip-off of a much better show.
[u:5fe6c1a14c][i:5fe6c1a14c][b:5fe6c1a14c]
Psych on the USA Network. [/b:5fe6c1a14c][/i:5fe6c1a14c][/u:5fe6c1a14c]

The Pineapple rules and the Mentalist drools![/i]

[RICHARDMILTER]

The only TV show I will watch is Futurama. There is more math, physics, and humor on that show than any TV show. EVER.

[cummings2]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ayayayayayayaaaaay!!!!

Ooooooh! STOP!!! This thread is waaaay too funny!

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

oooooh boy is this funny!

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oy oy oy!... oooooh!...

Oh boy my belly hurts.

...

Thank you all... this is just what I needed :lol: :lol: :lol:

FWIW... the secret of my success is to fill my draft card whilst whistling Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture... never fails :wink:

C2

[voovits]

There is a very easy solution to all this actually.
You can use all players who are awful, making one of the columns on the pitchers card the best column, thus taking the choice out of your hands. =)

[ugrant]

Voovits - using your scenarios:

Scenario A: the columns duplicate. There is one column in this scenario and it is a winner, your 100% of 16.7%.

Duplicate card lineup 16.7% to achieve desired column.
Alternate card lineup 0%

Scenario B: the columns do not duplicate. There are five columns in this scenario, 1 is a winner. 1/5 wins, 20%

Duplicate card lineup 0%
Alternate card lineup 20% to achieve desired column.

Your analysis always applies the 83.3% to the outcome, which reverts to the 1/6 chance of any column. I've already acknowledged that.

My analysis only applies the 83.3% to the scenario determination, you can't have 83.3% of five columns.

Best chance to win for the duplicate card lineup is 16.7% (Scenario A)
Best chance to win for the alternate card lineup is 20% (Scenario B)

Coyote: give it a rest. For condescension and sarcasm to be effective, your target has to have some modicum of respect for you. Doesn't apply in my case. Fire away if you wish, your position is already known.

[maligned]

ugrant: You lay out perfectly a strategy for gaining the 20% to 16.7% advantage directly after a previous successful roll [b:b55269f878]in an environment where repeat rolls are not possible.[/b:b55269f878]
I don't know how many degenerate gamblers, career statisticians, computer programmers, part-time oddsmakers, and other numbers geniuses have to lay this out for you, but your scenario still only describes what I state in my first sentence.
I respect your passion, but it just doesn't make sense. Anybody with any oddsmaking experience at all would be absolutely killing it on here if there were any 3.3% advantage to be gained with any degree of regularity. Unfortunately, there is no such person because your conclusion about your scenario is faulty.