I think they are invisible
I think they are invisible
BUMP--another funeral made me think of this old thread. Any interest in another simulation? Any thoughts as to special inputs?
I am having dinner with him on Friday.
Has the code ever been posted here? I browsed through thread quickly, didn't see any clear indication of it. Perhaps it was emailed or PMd to arci?
I'm not saying your genius cousin's code is bug-free nor has bugs, but just because someone is a genius and all that, doesn't mean the code is bug-free and coded properly. If he only held dealt straights or better, pair of aces (or 3 or 4 aces presumably), or a royal draw, I'd find it EXTREMELY difficult to believe the +5.2% figure to be anything short of far right-side variance, over 1 million hands. Almost certainly there is either a bug in the code or something's missing (ie: martingale).
No 4-flush holds, 4-straight holds, 3oak holds, or 2 pair holds? Something smells very fishy....
71 royals in 1M hands means the RF had a payback of 5.68% over that period of play.
If there was a 5.2% profit, that means the game would have had nearly 100% return (excluding RF return). Coupled with an absolutely awful strategy.....I'm really suspicious the sim was coded and executed properly, excluding the almost impossible long odds of running that far on the right side of variance.
18 yo's in a row is starting to look very likely (comparatively).
I'd still like to know about the bankroll requirements.
RS-I am certainly not smart enough to answer the questions or respond. But I assume the parameters used in the first simulation, in part, in addition to random luck, caused the high number of royals. But the other simulations using standard play (thread 46) don't seem that out of line to me.Originally Posted by RS__
I wouldn't know "code" if it were staring me in the face so I can only assume there were no bugs and rely on his assurance that he was certain there were no bugs.
I should add that I don't ever question the lack of royals or large amount of royals produced in any simulation. I went 10 years and millions of hands without a royal until I finally got a few. Then on very little play the last several years I seem to constantly get royals. To me, it shows that variance rules and EV requires a lot more than a million hands.
Last edited by regnis; 11-08-2016 at 08:53 AM.
1 million hands isn't a lot when it comes to VP. If I were to do this same experiment, I'd run it at least 1000 times.
So... for we mere mortals, quitting when ahead makes sense.Originally Posted by jbjb
Never said it didn't. It won't help you get ahead. You have a win goal. Having that won't help you get to it. That's the point.
That's the thing though....the amount of royals isn't that far out of line. You'd expect about 50 royals, so 71 is not that lucky.Originally Posted by regnis
The problem is, since those royals represent 5.68% of the actual 105.2% return (71*800/1000000 = 5.68%). This means every non-royal hand should add up to almost a 100% payout (105.2% - 5.68% = 99.52%).
You don't need to understand code to realize something is either seriously wrong or absurdly great luck.
Just my luck!! I get lucky on a meaningless simulation and suck sitting at the machine.
Not exactly. Losing hands can be offset by winning hands and some winning hands can exceed the value of losing hands such as with trips and straights and flushes.Originally Posted by RS__
And how frequently do you get dealt those hands or redraw those hands (without holding any cards)?
When I first started playing, I downloaded a training program that would send a warning if you made the "incorrect" play, then show you why and the correct play. I went for 3 to a royal with a high pair and the warning stopped my play with all the info. I overrode it and hit the royal.Originally Posted by regnis
I don't know what you are talking about. The original parameters of the simulation was this:Originally Posted by RS__
My cousin works at a major software company. I asked him if he could run a simulation under the following parameters:
8-5 DDB
keep 2 aces, or any natural straight or higher. Otherwise, just keep any cards towards a royal. So toss two pair, any pair other than aces etc. Just going for royals unless a good hand dealt.
Hence my statement:
Losing hands can be offset by winning hands and some winning hands can exceed the value of losing hands such as with trips and straights and flushes.
Using that strategy, a significant majority of straights or better that you get are going to get, come from either being either DEALT or REDRAWN. Those hands are very rarely going to come from holding a single or multiple high cards (2/3/4 cards to RF hold) or holding aces.
No straights from holding 4567 or TJQK off suit, no full houses from low pairs or 2-pairs, no flushes from 4-to-flush..etc.
Or is none of this getting through to you?
RS__ don't you think you should be questioning the author of the report instead of attacking me? But then you will use any opportunity possible to attack me.
On second thought, the hell with VP. Maybe I'll teach him blackjack and let him go all "rain man".
RS is exactly right. The chances of getting the claimed return is very, very low. Much lower than a Trump win. It is almost certainly a bug. I volunteered to check it out but the code was never provided. When I run simulations I would run them 1000 times. Running one time is meaningless.
Arci-good to see you--you have been absent.
Hope you are well.
He had 2 of his co-workers review his work based upon these comments and it was clean. But I am not going to have him do any additional simulations and he is interested in learning BJ (which will probably take him about 10 seconds). He's never been to a casino.I will be interested to see whether his ability translates to an edge of any kind. He has already mastered the simple count.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote