| Author |
 Replies: 678 / Views: 16,142 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4000 Posts |
An interesting side note: I realized last night that xshift and I were running our experiments differently. I don't know if it would have a bearing on the outcomes or not, but I still found it interesting.
I would shuffle the deck, pick out 3 or 4 combinations, find them, and re-shuffle.
She was shuffling every time, but kept J6 as a control constant.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
287 Posts |
 , I was shuffling every time and using a single random test generated by whatever came up on the television show I was watching. |
|
Valued Member
Canada
287 Posts |
I think it may help to define what it is we are trying to formulate.
Is it the number of times a card (assuming a Jack) can be found in a deck within two spaces of another card (assuming 6)?
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
287 Posts |
This being the numerator, what is the denominator. We keep kicking about 52! but is this actually what we need. What I mean is, are we looking for the wrong thing? Should be be comparing the numerator against the number of other cards that could be there instead of the 6 and forgetting about how many positions it could happen in. Do we care the order of the other cards?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4000 Posts |
That's what I said earlier, too. I think 52! as the denominator isn't right. And if it is, then 50! (for positions) should be included in the numerator some where. Well, actually 52! in the numerator because of the "overlap". But, then 52! / 52! = 1.  |
|
Valued Member
Canada
287 Posts |
Quote:
52! / 52! = 1 Finally, something we can agree on ! |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4000 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
602 Posts |
Just glanced over the last few pages and am totally lost so I'll guess 16%. WOLF Edited by wolf-n-wa
10/25/2010 9:21 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4000 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
602 Posts |
I checked it Scoob. Beyond my brain functional capacity at this time. WOLF
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2669 Posts |
Quote:
Too low of an expected win % But it *was* the one I was getting during my experiment yesterday. Quote:
I'd like to see how you came up with 46.
52 minus all J's and 6's = 44
52 minus just this J and 6 = 50
52 minus this J and 6 and remaining 6's = 47
What did I miss? I was doing: Jack(1) Ace(1) 6(1) Jack(1) Ace(2) 6(1) etc. But I did it 4 or 5 different ways so I'll see. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2669 Posts |
If picking the same numbers all the time lowers your win ratio, I suppose that means it would be a good thing to pick different numbers each time playing the lottery  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4000 Posts |
Quote:
I suppose that means it would be a good thing to pick different numbers each time playing the lottery That is fact! Playing the same numbers week in and week out is not to your advantage. |
|
Valued Member
Canada
287 Posts |
Quote:
If picking the same numbers all the time lowers your win ratio, I suppose that means it would be a good thing to pick different numbers each time playing the lottery That would be true if you were actually winning that often. Of course if I was winning that often would I really need to keep playing? |
|
Valued Member
Canada
287 Posts |
That does bring up an interesting question. Why are we changing the numbers during uor experimentation. This is not a portion of our calculations. The factorial would be useless as we would need to restart our chain of arrangements each time we change the control.
|
| |
Replies: 678 / Views: 16,142 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 10/25/2010 7:41 pm
