*****IMPORTANT**** Chief Myers Injury on #3

Charlie-

very simply you can't use real life examples of actual injuries as a basis for comparison-
it has zero bearing on the game.

Also, you have made an assumption regarding the early injuries and then are asking me to make a determination based on YOUR assumption...
This is the same faulty reasoning as you had earlier regarding injury distribution which SoM said was not the case.

http://dilbert.com/strip/2001-10-25

"Even" once came up 28 times in a row at a roulette table in Monte Carlo. "Randomness" is at once the fun and frustration of this game. At least it's a lot cheaper than roulette.

Hank

http://dilbert.com/strip/2001-10-25

"Even" once came up 28 times in a row at a roulette table in Monte Carlo. "Randomness" is at once the fun and frustration of this game. At least it's a lot cheaper than roulette.

Hank

Wow! and all of what Charlie said whether faulty or not....New question is....do programs ever have bugs in them or are the all perfect excluding the three times Bill had to write to SOM to let them know M. Wills card was incorrect?


And is it POSSIBLE albeit unlikely, could there be the SMALLEST chance....the most infinitesimal chance that something is programmed into the code????????

"Just because your paranoid doesn't mean that ain't watchin ya" ~ John Munch.

And as a footnote to the "rolled craps 6 straight times" and "it came out on even 28 straight times" Any possibility that the casinos rigged something or they have never done that?

See I'm not saying the numbers guys are wrong I'm just surprised at how closed they are to the smallest possibility that it's not random

Charlie-

Maybe Im off base here but it seems to me like you are drawing your conclusions based on reverse engineering the problem-
b/c thats the only way Id think you'd make those assumptions as the way you believe it must work.

Charlie-

Maybe Im off base here but it seems to me like you are drawing your conclusions based on reverse engineering the problem-
b/c thats the only way Id think you'd make those assumptions as the way you believe it must work.

See that is the difference between you and I, I have made no conclusions because I have not seen any data, you make conclusions and say you don't need any data because your hypothesis is so strong.

For an explanation of why this is noticed see this article in Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/math-explains-likely-long-shots-miracles-and-winning-the-lottery/]

I will include an excerpt that shows how lottery numbers have duplicated, far less likely than 'ole Chief Meyers

The Bulgarian lottery that repeated numbers in 2009 is a six-out-of-49 lottery, so the chance of any particular set of six numbers coming up is one in 13,983,816. That means that the chance that any particular two draws will match is one in 13,983,816. But what about the chance that some two draws among three draws will match? Or the chance that some two draws among 50 draws will match?

There are three possible pairs among three draws but 1,225 among 50 draws. The law of combinations is coming into play. If we take it further, among 1,000 draws there are 499,500 possible pairs. In other words, if we multiply the number of draws by 20, increasing it from 50 to 1,000, the impact on the number of pairs is much greater, multiplying it by almost 408 and increasing it from 1,225 to 499,500. We are entering the realm of truly large numbers.

How many draws would be needed so that the probability of drawing the same six numbers twice was greater than one half—so that this event was more likely than not? Using the same method we used in the birthday problem results in an answer of 4,404.

If two draws occur each week, making 104 in a year, this number of draws will take less than 43 years. That means that after 43 years, it is more likely than not that some two of the sets of six numbers drawn by the lottery machine will have matched exactly. That puts a rather different complexion on the Bulgarian spokeswoman's comment that it was a freak coincidence!

And that's just for one lottery. When we take into account the number of lotteries around the world, we see that it would be amazing if draws did not occasionally repeat. So you won't be surprised to learn that in Israel's Mifal HaPayis state lottery, the numbers drawn on October 16, 2010—13, 14, 26, 32, 33, 36—were exactly the same as those drawn a few weeks earlier, on September 21. You won't be surprised to learn that, but scores of people flooded Israel's talk radio programs with calls to complain that the lottery was fixed.

The Bulgarian lottery result was unusual in that the duplicate sets of numbers occurred in consecutive draws. But the law of truly large numbers, combined with the fact that there are many lotteries around the world regularly rolling out their numbers, means we shouldn't be too surprised—and so we shouldn't be taken aback to hear that it had happened before. For example, the North Carolina Cash 5 lottery produced the same winning numbers on July 9 and 11, 2007.

Charlie-

Maybe Im off base here but it seems to me like you are drawing your conclusions based on reverse engineering the problem-
b/c thats the only way Id think you'd make those assumptions as the way you believe it must work.

See that is the difference between you and I, I have made no conclusions because I have not seen any data, you make conclusions and say you don't need any data because your hypothesis is so strong.

Are you being serious?
You just came up with a whole thing about early injuries and immediately went on to ASSUME that your hypothesis was correct and those were the parameters within which we SHOULD operate and test.

See I get why you don't understand- its only a matter of will you be able to allow for the possibility that it MIGHT not be random number generation?

Charlie you can come up with a billion examples of things more unusual than ole Chief here...and you might be right with those examples....and perhaps you're right here too....but you haven't proved anything here because fact is you just can't be certain....Yet you leave no room for that possibility.

You know the worse part is that instead of getting the actual question looked into we are stuck here fighting about ridiculous numerical philosophies.

Just totally shuts down any ability to find things out.

Here's another interesting case of bizarre randomness. According to the NY Herald Trib of 11 June 1950, a guy made 28 consecutive passes at craps. He would have walked away owning the Desert Inn where he was playing if he had let it ride, but he never kept more than $50 on the line. He held the dice for an hour and twenty minutes. Zeppo Marx made it to the table, where guys were offering $500 for a place, and took away $28,000.

On the paranoids are sometimes right side, isn't it interesting that at Monte Carlo and Vegas, the streaks both lasted 28 times? If you're ever riding one, I suggest you get off at 28;-)

Hank