Using an 8 deck shoe, would it be possible to program a computer to read the card that appears after 6 non-face cards appear in a row? After one million such occurences, would that total be higher than 4/13. What would it be for 7 or 8 non-face cards in a row?
> Using an 8-deck shoe, would it be possible to program
> a computer to read the card that appears after 6
> non-face cards appear in a row?
I'm sure it would, but I can't imagine why you would possibly want to do it.
> After one million such
> occur[r]ences, would that total be higher than 4/13.
Of course it would! If I remove 6 small cards from a 312-card shoe, have I not, by the very act, increased the probability that the next card is a face from 4/13 (96/312) to 96/306?
What am I missing??
>What would it be for 7 or 8 non-face cards in a row?
96/305 and 96/304, respectively.
There must be something to this that I'm missing, huh, Stephen?
Don
Is it right... [6 non-face cards appear in a row] usually means [the [6 non-face cards appear in a row]... starts from the beginning of the shoe,... or starts from a face card] ?
> Is it right... [6 non-face cards appear in a row]
> usually means [the [6 non-face cards appear in a
> row]... starts from the beginning of the shoe,... or
> starts from a face card] ?
To me "6 non-face cards appear in a row" just means "6 non-face cards appear in a row". It says nothing about the card(s) before. The answer remains the same whether the cards appear at the start of the shoe, or in the middle, or if we just pick out 6 cards at random.
> I'm sure it would, but I can't imagine why you would
> possibly want to do it.
> Of course it would! If I remove 6 small cards from a
> 312-card shoe, have I not, by the very act, increased
> the probability that the next card is a face from 4/13
> (96/312) to 96/306?
> What am I missing??
> 96/305 and 96/304, respectively.
> There must be something to this that I'm missing, huh,
> Stephen?
> Don
Sorry for any confusion that I have caused. From time to time, the dealer will get an Ace and the 6 cards (or more) before the down card are all non-face. I have taken Insurance in these situations even when the count was close to zero and I was curious to find out what if any advantage would I have in this wager.
Also, if you were sitting at first base and the 6 cards that ended the last hand were non-face, assuming that the count was at or near zero, would it be worthwhile to increase ones wager in this situation. I am not any good at computer technology, but I believe that if your first card is a face card, your overall advantage, no mater what the dealer's up card is, averages out to about 15%.
> To me "6 non-face cards appear in a row"
> just means "6 non-face cards appear in a
> row". It says nothing about the card(s) before.
> The answer remains the same whether the cards appear
> at the start of the shoe, or in the middle, or if we
> just pick out 6 cards at random.
That is why I used "usually means".
On google:
24/7 Wall St.: Consecutive Down Days...NSM has been down six days in a row and is 0 for 3 in the last four years on the seventh day (meaning it has gone down for a 7th day all three times it has been down six days in a row).
Randomness (Skeptical Briefs March 2005)...the darts won six times in a row
SPX consecutive UP days...Again it closed UP six days in a row
Online Gambling Forums...THE DEALER GOT SIX BLACKJACKS IN A ROW THEN HE WAS DEALT 20 THE NEXT FIVE HANDS. ...
Learn How to Play Casino Craps the Right Way...that red appeared six times in a row.
> That is why I used "usually means".
> On google:
> 24/7 Wall St.: Consecutive Down Days...NSM has been
> down six days in a row and is 0 for 3 in the last four
> years on the seventh day (meaning it has gone down for
> a 7th day all three times it has been down six days in
> a row).
>
All of these are descriptions of one particular sequence of outcomes, where it makes sense to use the largest value of x for which "x times in a row" is true. When we talk about the set of all possible outcomes, "x times in a row" usually implies "at least".
e.g.
[*]From Wikipedia's Gambler's fallacy article: "The chances of it coming up heads twice in a row are 0.5?0.5=0.25 (one in four). The probability of three heads in a row is 0.5?0.5?0.5= 0.125 (one in eight) and so on."[*]
From Wikipedia's Martingale (betting system): "The chance of losing 4 bets in a row (and therefore losing the complete $150) is (20/38)4 = 7.67%."[/list]
> Sorry for any confusion that I have caused. From time
> to time, the dealer will get an Ace and the 6 cards
> (or more) before the down card are all non-face.
Is this a shoe game?? If all the cards are dealt face up, so that you can see 12 cards, before making your insurance decision, why would you base your decision on just the first six cards dealt before the dealer's down card? What's wrong with the other six, dealt AFTER he took his down card? Don't you think that knowing what they are is just as "valuable"? If not, please reread BJA3, pp. 51-52 very carefully, before you respond.
> I have taken Insurance in these situations even when the
> count was close to zero and I was curious to find out
> what if any advantage would I have in this wager.
None whatsoever. If those six small cards are the only ones you have reckoned, and this is a shoe game, then the RC is +5 (dealer shows an ace), the TC is slightly less than +1, and insurance is certainly far from advisable. More precisely, you started with 312 cards, and have removed six non-tens, leaving 306 cards, of which 96 are tens and 210 are non-tens. Unless the ratio of non-tens to tens is LESS than 2 to 1, it's wrong to insure. And here, the ratio is 210 to 96 or 2.1875 to 1.
Do you understand?
> Also, if you were sitting at first base and the 6
> cards that ended the last hand were non-face, assuming
> that the count was at or near zero,
How would you know??
> would it be
> worthwhile to increase one's wager in this situation.
The TC is slightly less than +1. Depending on the rules, you might have a slight edge. I wouldn't raise my bet very much!
> I am not any good at computer technology, but I believe
> that if your first card is a face card, your overall
> advantage, no matter what the dealer's up card is,
> averages out to about 15%.
Closer to 14%. But, that has no relevance here. That is for when you are CERTAIN that the card you're receiving is a ten. Clearly, that isn't the case here.
Don
I posted a very lengthy answer to this, this afternoon, and saw it on the Forum.
What happened to it?????
Don
> I posted a very lengthy answer to this, this
> afternoon, and saw it on the Forum.
> What happened to it?????
> Don
No idea - I didn't delete it.
> All of these are descriptions of one particular
> sequence of outcomes, where it makes sense to use the
> largest value of x for which " x times in a
> row" is true. When we talk about the set of all
> possible outcomes, " x times in a row"
> usually implies "at least".
> e.g.
> From Wikipedia's Gambler's fallacy article:
> "The chances of it coming up heads twice in a row
> are 0.5?0.5=0.25 (one in four). The probability of
> three heads in a row is 0.5?0.5?0.5= 0.125 (one in
> eight) and so on." From Wikipedia's Martingale
> (betting system) : "The chance of losing 4 bets
> in a row (and therefore losing the complete $150) is
> (20/38) 4 = 7.67%."
I don't see much different from your cases and mine:
...NSM has been down six days in a row >>> "What is the chance for that?", "It happened once in..."
...the darts won six times in a row >>> "What is the chance for that?", "The chance is about ..."
...Again it closed UP six days in a row >>> "What is the chance for that?", "The chance is about ..."
...THE DEALER GOT SIX BLACKJACKS IN A ROW >>> "What is the chance for that?", "The chance is ..."
...that red appeared six times in a row >>> "What is the chance for that?", "The chance is ..."
Just a guess...[When we talk about the set of all possible outcomes, "x times in a row"], usually we don't mention in detail when or where we start counting "x times in a row" because usually we don't have to, because in most of the cases they make no difference, as in your cases from Wikipedia.
www.bjstats.com/bjsc.asp
Streaks - Hands in a Row
... if a player wins three hands in a row and then loses the fourth hand, only the hand number three win streak counter will be incremented. The hand one and hand two counters will not be incremented.
www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=5975
Out of every 100,000 hands played by this sim, there were-
LOSING STREAKS
10,544 streaks of 1
5,572 streaks of 2
2,954 streaks of 3
1,568 streaks of 4
832 streaks of 5
441 streaks of 6
234 streaks of 7
124 streaks of 8
66 streaks of 9
35 streaks of 10
19 streaks of 11
10 streaks of 12
5 streaks of 13
3 streaks of 14
Little indexing problem.
> I don't see much different from your cases and mine:
> ...NSM has been down six days in a row >>
> "What is the chance for that?", "It
> happened once in..."
> ...the darts won six times in a row >>
> "What is the chance for that?", "The
> chance is about ..."
> ...Again it closed UP six days in a row >>
> "What is the chance for that?", "The
> chance is about ..."
> ...THE DEALER GOT SIX BLACKJACKS IN A ROW >>
> "What is the chance for that?", "The
> chance is ..."
> ...that red appeared six times in a row >>
> "What is the chance for that?", "The
> chance is ..."
Would you answer these with the probability for exactly six in a row, or for at least six in a row? If this wasn't specified, I would give the latter answer. Why?
The probability of being struck by lightning during your lifetime has been estimated at 1 in 5000 (lower than you might think!). So, if John Smith down the road got struck by lightning while playing golf last week, what is the chance of that? Do we want to know the probability of being struck by lightning while playing golf? Or the probability someone was struck by lightning last week? Or the probability that a male golf player was struck by lightning exactly once, between 3pm and 4pm on the 17th fairway? Or is the answer just 1 in 5000?
> Just a guess...[When we talk about the set of all
> possible outcomes, "x times in a row"],
> usually we don't mention in detail when or where we
> start counting "x times in a row" because
> usually we don't have to, because in most of the cases
> they make no difference, as in your cases from
> Wikipedia.
It's not when or where we start counting that makes a difference - it's "exactly" versus "at least". In my opinion, when talking about the probability of x times in a row, "at least" is implied; when talking about a particular set of outcomes, "exactly" is implied. But perhaps we should just agree that statements of this sort are ambiguous and leave it at that?
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks