Unbelievable

[aslan]

???

I don't see why the same number in a row is any more unbelievable than any other sequence of numbers.

Seeing 29,29,29,29,29,29,29 is just is likely, or "unlikely", as 6,7,2,5,4,23,30, which I may have happened to see once...

At any given moment looking at a roulette history the chance of that specific set of 7 numbers is 1 in whatever billion.

I think you're missing something obvious here. If you generate eight numbers between 1 and 36 randomly, how often do you think it will come up eight identical numbers, whereas it will come up various combinations other than all identical numbers "almost" every time. It's the eight identical numbers that is so surprising, even though as you say, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8 is no more rare than 12, 4, 34, 23, 7, 14, 2, 27.

 

[tthree]

I think you're missing something obvious here. If you generate eight numbers between 1 and 36 randomly, how often do you think it will come up eight identical numbers, whereas it will come up various combinations other than all identical numbers "almost" every time. It's the eight identical numbers that is so surprising, even though as you say, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8 is no more rare than 12, 4, 34, 23, 7, 14, 2, 27.

The odds of the exact sequence 12, 4, 34 ... is in that exact order is the same as all eights. Your mind just thinks it is different because of its appearance. I've looked down the roulette displays and seen multiple displays with all the same number. I just assume it is untrue that they were actual spins because my mind does the same thing.

 

[London Colin]

I think you're missing something obvious here. If you generate eight numbers between 1 and 36 randomly, how often do you think it will come up eight identical numbers, whereas it will come up various combinations other than all identical numbers "almost" every time. It's the eight identical numbers that is so surprising, even though as you say, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8 is no more rare than 12, 4, 34, 23, 7, 14, 2, 27.

There is a subjective element to all of this. All sequences are equally likely, but they are not all equally surprising.

So I guess the question is how large is the set of sequences that would cause as much of a stir as the one that was seen.

 

[aslan]

There is a subjective element to all of this. All sequences are equally likely, but they are not all equally surprising.

So I guess the question is how large is the set of sequences that would cause as much of a stir as the one that was seen.

That's what I was trying to explain. It's not the odds of eight 8's in a row as opposed to any other equally unlikely sequence, it's the odds of eight 8's vs any non-matching sequence. Only 38 matching sequences are possible, whereas, zillions (I'm not a mathematician) of non-matching sequences are possible. Does this explain it better?

PS-- I should have said "scads" not zillions. lol

 

[MountainMan]

I was playing roulette when I was much younger. Only had a few hundred dollars to play with. It was an office trip and I was just trying to make my cash last through the evening. I would play red or black with a minimum bet. I was winning, so every blue moon I would make a larger bet on a single number. Each time I bet the single number I won the bet. This went on throughout the evening. I can't tell you the actual number of single bet wins, but my guess it was more than ten! The pit bosses were all hovering around the table. By the end of the evening I was drunk as a skunk. I went to cash out to attend the party in the suite and they told me that if I left the table I would not be permitted to come back to the same table. They asked me if I was timing the wheel. I laughed. They didn't. I stayed at the table and gave lost it all back.

 

[London Colin]

That's what I was trying to explain. It's not the odds of eight 8's in a row as opposed to any other equally unlikely sequence, it's the odds of eight 8's vs any non-matching sequence. Only 38 matching sequences are possible, whereas, zillions (I'm not a mathematician) of non-matching sequences are possible. Does this explain it better?

But you don't have to limit yourself to a sequence of all the same number. All sorts of patterns might be deemed just as remarkable: {1,2,3,4,5,6,7}, {7,6,5,4,3,2,1}, (36,35,34,33,32,31,30}, {2,4,6,8,10,12,14}, {1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2} .....

As I said, it's subjective, but I would define all of the above and many more as sequences that would 'cause as much of a stir' as {29,29,29,29,29,29,29}.

It's still going to be a very small set, compared to all the possibilities of similar length, but suppose there are 1,000 such sequences, then we might be looking at an event you should expect to encounter once every 10 years, as opposed to once every 10,000!

 

[aslan]

But you don't have to limit yourself to a sequence of all the same number. All sorts of patterns might be deemed just as remarkable: {1,2,3,4,5,6,7}, {7,6,5,4,3,2,1}, (36,35,34,33,32,31,30}, {2,4,6,8,10,12,14}, {1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2} .....

As I said, it's subjective, but I would define all of the above and many more as sequences that would 'cause as much of a stir' as {29,29,29,29,29,29,29}.

It's still going to be a very small set, compared to all the possibilities of similar length, but suppose there are 1,000 such sequences, then we might be looking at an event you should expect to encounter once every 10 years, as opposed to once every 10,000!

I purposely DID limit myself to a sequence of the same number. To me, not being a math nerd, I found this to be quite remarkable and still do regardless of what anyone might want to remark. At the present time, millions of gamblers might be interested in the time that the number 29 hit eight times in a row at roulette. I doubt that even 0.73492 people would be interested that 12, 4, 27, 3, 34, 7, 19, 22 hit last Tuesday in that particular order. But what do we know! We are amazed at the most trivial and commonplace of things! :joker:

 

[London Colin]

I purposely DID limit myself to a sequence of the same number.

I realise that. Rightly or wrongly, I was suggesting that it is not logical to do so.

 

[aslan]

i realise that. Rightly or wrongly, i was suggesting that it is not logical to do so.

Wrong! You seem to understand the most complex of things, and fail to grasp the simplest? I give up. View attachment 7830

And by the way, there is nothing you said that I found the least bit difficult to grasp; my only question is, why would you want to? When there are a few very interesting trees in the forest, why insist on looking at the forest at large? I like the tree that looks like Yogi Bear, just another chance accident as it is. :grin::whip:

 

[London Colin]

I'm ambivalent about this whole topic. I'd be as amazed as anyone else to be in a casino and witness such an event. That doesn't stop me questioning my own amazement and seeking deeper understanding.

I thought a reasoned discussion about the subject might help me towards that deeper understanding.

 

[aslan]

I'm ambivalent about this whole topic. I'd be as amazed as anyone else to be in a casino and witness such an event. That doesn't stop me questioning my own amazement and seeking deeper understanding.

I thought a reasoned discussion about the subject might help me towards that deeper understanding.

That's cool.

It reminds me of when I was young and the church had a raffle and the car always went to some poor parishioner who did not have a car, or the TV went to someone similar who did not own a TV. At first I thought of my religion class teaching about Divine Providence. As I grew older I began to play with the idea that maybe the priest fixed the raffle so that the person in need got the prize. I guess either way if was a victory for the concept of Providence, although I still like to think that the priest would not play God; also, there's the idea of fraud and the public trust. And as I grow still older, I think maybe he didn't cheat. Maybe it was on the up and up all the time.

Also, I am convinced that the reason I have not won the Megamillions raffle has to do more with the fact that it would completely destroy me, than with the fact that it is probably 300 milliom to one. :laugh: I guess I'm a lucky guy.

 

[MangoJ]

If somebody is thrilled that a number came up 8 times a row doesn't understand much about probabilities.
Yes there is only 1 of those sequence. And yes the probability of observing this very sequence is astronomical low.

BUT there is a ton of those sequences equally "remarkable", each one of them raising your attention. In the sum, together with the rather large number of casino hour and number of tables available in one's life, it is nothing more remarkable than a win in lottery. Yes, they do happen. No, they aren't that much interesting to observe - maybe for the one playing the game - but those were way behind in the first place.

Once there was a lottery, whose numbers were (although not in that exact sequence): 1,2,3,4,5,6. People were pissed, because there were also a ton of winners they had to share the price pool with. Personally, I have not much sympathy left for those: Don't play lottery in the first place, but if you do don't pick numbers every one of ten-thousand moron would also pick.

 

[tthree]

That's cool.

It reminds me of when I was young and the church had a raffle and the car always went to some poor parishioner who did not have a car, or the TV went to someone similar who did not own a TV. At first I thought of my religion class teaching about Divine Providence. As I grew older I began to play with the idea that maybe the priest fixed the raffle so that the person in need got the prize. I guess either way if was a victory for the concept of Providence, although I still like to think that the priest would not play God; also, there's the idea of fraud and the public trust. And as I grow still older, I think maybe he didn't cheat. Maybe it was on the up and up all the time.

Also, I am convinced that the reason I have not won the Megamillions raffle has to do more with the fact that it would completely destroy me, than with the fact that it is probably 300 milliom to one. :laugh: I guess I'm a lucky guy.

I was a judge in a church chili cookoff once. It was me, the pastor and his wife as the three judges. I am a hot pepper lover so it didn't surprise me that they didn't care for the best chili. We agreed on what was the best and the pastor said he knew who made it and he won last year. The prize ended up going to the second best chili as they wanted to spread the thrill of victory around.

 

[aslan]

If somebody is thrilled that a number came up 8 times a row doesn't understand much about probabilities.

Bullcrap! What is it that makes you math types want to minimize something like this, as if a number hitting eight times in a row were a common everyday occurrence. If you live a million lifetimes, you will probably never see such an occurrence. The fact that there are an infinite number of other unlikely occurrences that could happen does nothing IMHO to minimize this singular event. It's the condescending attitude that gets under my skin as if anyone who does not share your snobbery is too dumb to understand what you are saying. Membership in Mensa does not even begin to qualify one for membership in the human race, in fact, it may be a negative factor in that regard. And, no, I do not think it is stupendous that someone hits the lottery with all the millions and millions of people who play the lottery. But, yes, I would be surprised if it were I who won the lottery-- you wouldn't be surprised if you won it? :flame:

 

[London Colin]

That's cool.

The reasoned discussion I was hoping for would certainly be cool.

You seem determined to ensure it doesn't happen.

 

[aslan]

The reasoned discussion I was hoping for would certainly be cool.

You seem determined to ensure it doesn't happen.

Factually, you are correct. What is there to discuss? Your attempt to obfuscate the obvious with the even more obvious seemed pointless to me. Sometimes raw responses are a better basis for dialogue than pretended civility. Or am I wrong? Anyone?

 

[Gamblor]

Factually, you are correct. What is there to discuss? Your attempt to obfuscate the obvious with the even more obvious seemed pointless to me. Sometimes raw responses are a better basis for dialogue than pretended civility. Or am I wrong? Anyone?

Aslan I saw an interesting quote yesterday, kind of brought to mind this site and internet forums in general.

"I'd like to see it from your viewpoint, but I can't get my head that far up my a$$"

What can I say, card counting tends to attract people of certain, mindsets. Maybe they're young too, who knows.

 

[London Colin]

Factually, you are correct. What is there to discuss? Your attempt to obfuscate the obvious with the even more obvious seemed pointless to me. Sometimes raw responses are a better basis for dialogue than pretended civility. Or am I wrong? Anyone?

Obfuscate? Wow. If you have genuinely managed to interpret anything I've said as an attempt to obfuscate, then you are viewing things through a filter I cannot hope to penetrate.

The discussion needn't be with you, if you feel there is nothing to discuss. But by being so pointlessly disdainful, you have ensured that this thread shuts down before I learn from it all that I had hoped to. Assume_R and MangoJ certainly don't seem inclined to post any further, and who can blame them?

 

[aslan]

I wonder how many others here have witnessed similar events as did the OP?

I also wonder how long such a phenomenon might continue before the house closed down the game. At the Borgata in 2009, they witnessed a record run at dice:

Pat DeMauro bought into a craps game for $100 Saturday night and held the dice for four hours and 18 minutes. She threw the dice 154 times before she finally “sevened out,” Borgata officials said Sunday. The previous record for longest craps roll was held by Stanley Fujitake, of Honolulu, at 3 hours and 6 minutes, and it took place May 28, 1989, at the California Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas. http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/top_three/article_8472527c-48df-11de-b35c-001cc4c03286.html​

The management did not panic and close down the game. I wonder if the same could be said for roulette or other games: "Now for the 77th consecutive time, the number is 23. And we have a winner. Everyone, place your bets!" (...as pandemonium ensues!)

 

[Gamblor]

Pat DeMauro bought into a craps game for $100 Saturday night and held the dice for four hours and 18 minutes. She threw the dice 154 times before she finally “sevened out,” Borgata officials said Sunday. The previous record for longest craps roll was held by Stanley Fujitake, of Honolulu, at 3 hours and 6 minutes, and it took place May 28, 1989, at the California Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas. http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/top_three/article_8472527c-48df-11de-b35c-001cc4c03286.html​

Well, another good opportunity to bust out x50 spreads for 3 hours and 6 minutes.