Probability formula question

Originally Posted by LT Profits

He is probably referring to the Monte Hall problem.

I'm not sure if he was talking about the Monte Hall problem or not but one thing people seem to forget about the Monte Hall Problem is someone is controlling the situation and they can show you a Goat(or an empty door) no matter what your first choice is. A lot of people call it the Monte Hall paradox which is incorrect. It's actually a perceived paradox which is something else entirely.

There are some situations where percentages can get tricky. Example: Let's say you tested positive for a disease that only 1 in 100,000 people had. However, the test for that disease is only 99.9% accurate. That means for every 1 person that has the disease 10 people will test positive for it that are actually negative. So... if you test positive for this disease it's 10 times as likely to be a false positive than you actually having the disease. So... even if the test is 99.9% accurate it is still likely wrong if you test positive.

Originally Posted by JohnGalt2341

I'm not sure if he was talking about the Monte Hall problem or not but one thing people seem to forget about the Monte Hall Problem is someone is controlling the situation and they can show you a Goat(or an empty door) no matter what your first choice is. A lot of people call it the Monte Hall paradox which is incorrect. It's actually a perceived paradox which is something else entirely.

There are some situations where percentages can get tricky. Example: Let's say you tested positive for a disease that only 1 in 100,000 people had. However, the test for that disease is only 99.9% accurate. That means for every 1 person that has the disease 10 people will test positive for it that are actually negative. So... if you test positive for this disease it's 10 times as likely to be a false positive than you actually having the disease. So... even if the test is 99.9% accurate it is still likely wrong if you test positive.

sorry bro

but the guy asking all the probability questions, is not the guy I want answering all the probability questions

don't reply. I already told you..i proved who is the best all time at win percentages, you have your own agenda at a game no one has heard of reversi? and still want to try to bump your own knowledge

I think you are a fukkin a loser

Originally Posted by RudyRuetigger

sorry bro

but the guy asking all the probability questions, is not the guy I want answering all the probability questions

don't reply. I already told you..i proved who is the best all time at win percentages, you have your own agenda at a game no one has heard of reversi? and still want to try to bump your own knowledge

I think you are a fukkin a loser

You have no idea what the word "proved" means. Look it up. You didn't even provide any evidence, let alone prove anything.

At this point you talk about Reversi more than I do.

When I first started posting again at SBR I completely forgot who you were. I only knew your name from the movie which I like. At first I thought you were some kind of bully that someone needed to stand up to. But now I realize that you're not a bully at all. You're more like a small yelping dog that never shuts the F up. What's the longest you've ever went without insulting someone? 2 minutes? 3 tops? You're a complete embarrassment to SBR. I'm amazed they still let you post on here.

I think you are a bitch

let me know if you want to PROVE otherwise

Johngalt:

only uses this forum for his own benefit

trying to act like a fukkin hotshot at fukkin REVERSI

need I say more

NO

you USE this forum

I POST on this forum

Originally Posted by RudyRuetigger

Johngalt:

only uses this forum for his own benefit

trying to act like a fukkin hotshot at fukkin REVERSI

need I say more

NO

you USE this forum

I POST on this forum

You need help man. Now that I am aware of how despised you are on SBR all I can do is feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for any and all mentally challenged people including you. I don't think I've ever seen someone hate themselves as much as you obviously hate yourself. Get help while there is still time.

Originally Posted by JohnGalt2341

You need help man. Now that I am aware of how despised you are on SBR all I can do is feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for any and all mentally challenged people including you. I don't think I've ever seen someone hate themselves as much as you obviously hate yourself. Get help while there is still time.

you use this forum instead of giving back

maybe try that

all i see from you is:

1. help me here

2. i can beat you at a game no one else knows

let me know if I'm wrong

please provide posts where you say otherwise

Originally Posted by JohnGalt2341

I'm not sure if he was talking about the Monte Hall problem or not but one thing people seem to forget about the Monte Hall Problem is someone is controlling the situation and they can show you a Goat(or an empty door) no matter what your first choice is. A lot of people call it the Monte Hall paradox which is incorrect. It's actually a perceived paradox which is something else entirely.

There are some situations where percentages can get tricky. Example: Let's say you tested positive for a disease that only 1 in 100,000 people had. However, the test for that disease is only 99.9% accurate. That means for every 1 person that has the disease 10 people will test positive for it that are actually negative. So... if you test positive for this disease it's 10 times as likely to be a false positive than you actually having the disease. So... even if the test is 99.9% accurate it is still likely wrong if you test positive.

This was covered pretty clearly in Nate Silver's book

Originally Posted by RudyRuetigger

you use this forum instead of giving back

maybe try that

all i see from you is:

1. help me here

2. i can beat you at a game no one else knows

let me know if I'm wrong

please provide posts where you say otherwise

This is from earlier today. https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...100-units.html Look at posts #32 and #33. A noobie asked a question. I gave him a detailed answer. He then said "Thanks for your advice man."

When is the last time anyone thanked you for anything besides if you got lucky on a pick?

Mad math skills in this thread

Originally Posted by RudyRuetigger

you use this forum instead of giving back

maybe try that

all i see from you is:

1. help me here

2. i can beat you at a game no one else knows

let me know if I'm wrong

please provide posts where you say otherwise

I also gave out several hundred Points for those that could beat me in Reversi 6x6 and several people played me dozens of times and some beat me and I paid them. Check the thread https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...-giveaway.html I also gave several hundred points to people who could get at least HALF of my score in a completed Hexversi game. And a few people did it and I paid them.

I've never seen you give away points once ever! How in the world could you possibly be so self unaware? It's stunning.

Has anyone provided an explanation to how flipping 45 coins at once makes any difference to flipping them one after the other?

Can't see the answer for the swinging dick contest that has taken over the thread.

I say keep it easy and simple but direct and dialed in. Do your capping research and follow trends, winning streaks and the numbers, last 5 games and what have you done for me lately matters.... You'll win in any sport you gamble in if you master that.. Keep your bets consistent and you may just make a living out of sports gambling one day..

I'm not smart enough to factor in all the algorithms and what not.. I'm a ham and egger, grinder and that works for me.. Not a lot of math and science to it from my perspective, just alot of research and trend finding.. Stick to the sports you are hot with and concentrate on those as they will bring you the pay dirt.. They can vary from year to year.. Don't fight the power and chase when you're up against it..

I will say though most IMPORTANTLY there is something to lady luck and good karma. Treat others kindly and be giving in your ways.. Don't be self centered and greedy.. If you are a good person and give you will find yourself winning not only in gambling but in life.. Treat others how you would like to be treated...

My moral post for the day.. ..

Cheers biiitches!! My 2 cents for what ever it's worth..

Originally Posted by Optional

Has anyone provided an explanation to how flipping 45 coins at once makes any difference to flipping them one after the other?

Can't see the answer for the swinging dick contest that has taken over the thread.

My educated guess:

Obviously if you flipped one fair coin 45 times, each flip is 50/50 irregardless of previous results.

In the other example though of flipping 45 coins at once, the flipping has already happened and the results are being revealed afterwards, no longer making it a future event. Thus, just like the Monte Hall paradox from the 21 clip, revealing that the first 44 coins were heads serves as the changing variable. So...what was more likely to happen before the simultaneous flipping, 44 heads or 45 heads? Obviously the odds on both were minuscule but the 45-0 sweep was the most minuscule, so the tails would be favored for the 45th reveal.

Originally Posted by LT Profits

My educated guess:

Obviously if you flipped one fair coin 45 times, each flip is 50/50 irregardless of previous results.

In the other example though of flipping 45 coins at once, the flipping has already happened and the results are being revealed afterwards, no longer making it a future event. Thus, just like the Monte Hall paradox from the 21 clip, revealing that the first 44 coins were heads serves as the changing variable. So...what was more likely to happen before the simultaneous flipping, 44 heads or 45 heads? Obviously the odds on both were minuscule but the 45-0 sweep was the most minuscule, so the tails would be favored for the 45th reveal.

That's a good explanation, and probably what the lecturer in that movie clip would use as an answer.

But, how can both these statements be true? "past results have no effect on future results" (whether they are revealed one at a time or flipped one at a time seems to also have zero effect on that statement to me) and "changing variables after previous results do affect the final result".

I've been taught that idea of changing variables and how its always wise to change your pick in that 3 door situation example. But from the very first time I heard it, and every time since, I have not been able to blindly accept it as any sort of useful truth just because a teacher said it.

Where else in sports betting, or life, might this situation actually occur? Where the "host" knows beforehand which door to rule out. Without that information the example falls apart.

I think the Monte Hall paradox is just a bit of a thought exercise that proves nothing.