Unbelievable
- Thread starter BJFan
- Start date
So here's my take on it, expanding on my previous comment.
At any given time, you look at the roulette board. The chance of seeing those given 7 numbers, on the board, at that time, are 1 in a few billion.
If I were to stand at the entrance of the casino, and bet that 4,1,3,5,2,4,1 was going to show up in the casino that day, any person would be stupid not to bet against me. That is the same, whether those numbers are 4,1,3,... or 29,29,29,... In both cases, the odds would be very much against me.
Now what Aslan and the OP are noticing is something different. They already have a preclassified notion of sequences which would be considered "remarkable" to the human mind. These would probably consist of 2,2,2... 3,3,3..., 1,2,3,4,... 2,4,6,8,... and a slew of other preclassified "unbelievable" sequences.
Now they are correct in saying that the chance of seeing an "unbelievable" sequence at all is extremely small (since it's a small subset of all possible sequences) and at any given time, we have a much much higher chance of glancing up and seeing one of the "believable" sequences. What others' (read: London's and my) point is, is that your preclassified notion of what should go in the "unbelievable" set is completely arbitrary.
Now a separate issue is that with the hundreds of thousands of roulette spins per day, or week, or whatever, your odds of seeing one of your "unbelievable" sequences is much less than 1 in a few billion. But as long as you don't arbitrarily put too many sequences in the "unbelievable" category, it can still be considered remarkable.
At any given time, you look at the roulette board. The chance of seeing those given 7 numbers, on the board, at that time, are 1 in a few billion.
If I were to stand at the entrance of the casino, and bet that 4,1,3,5,2,4,1 was going to show up in the casino that day, any person would be stupid not to bet against me. That is the same, whether those numbers are 4,1,3,... or 29,29,29,... In both cases, the odds would be very much against me.
Now what Aslan and the OP are noticing is something different. They already have a preclassified notion of sequences which would be considered "remarkable" to the human mind. These would probably consist of 2,2,2... 3,3,3..., 1,2,3,4,... 2,4,6,8,... and a slew of other preclassified "unbelievable" sequences.
Now they are correct in saying that the chance of seeing an "unbelievable" sequence at all is extremely small (since it's a small subset of all possible sequences) and at any given time, we have a much much higher chance of glancing up and seeing one of the "believable" sequences. What others' (read: London's and my) point is, is that your preclassified notion of what should go in the "unbelievable" set is completely arbitrary.
Now a separate issue is that with the hundreds of thousands of roulette spins per day, or week, or whatever, your odds of seeing one of your "unbelievable" sequences is much less than 1 in a few billion. But as long as you don't arbitrarily put too many sequences in the "unbelievable" category, it can still be considered remarkable.
FLASH1296
Well-Known Member
I think that what underlies this non-issue is firstly, the hard-wired human tendency of "pattern-recognition", even where none exist.
Nowhere but in the galaxy of gambling is this more ubiquitous. In addition, there is a tendency for innumerates to assign meaning
to that which they do not comprehend — numbers.
The labeling of ANY number sequence in roulette as "remarkable" is uber-arbitrary — as the numbers are no more than designations
of the slots that the ball may fall into. All slots are exactly.
It is not like if 6-6-6 is the sequence the croupier will become Satanic; or if 9-1-1 is the sequence one need to run for the exit.
Perhaps if 1-2-9-6 is seen I should rush to the craps table to test my fate, as 1,296 is the square of 36 that is the number of all
possible 2 roll sequences of a pair of dice.
The numbers could easily be replaced by cuneiform symbols or pictures of vegetables, but then we would have people looking for Caesar Salads !
Nowhere but in the galaxy of gambling is this more ubiquitous. In addition, there is a tendency for innumerates to assign meaning
to that which they do not comprehend — numbers.
The labeling of ANY number sequence in roulette as "remarkable" is uber-arbitrary — as the numbers are no more than designations
of the slots that the ball may fall into. All slots are exactly.
It is not like if 6-6-6 is the sequence the croupier will become Satanic; or if 9-1-1 is the sequence one need to run for the exit.
Perhaps if 1-2-9-6 is seen I should rush to the craps table to test my fate, as 1,296 is the square of 36 that is the number of all
possible 2 roll sequences of a pair of dice.
The numbers could easily be replaced by cuneiform symbols or pictures of vegetables, but then we would have people looking for Caesar Salads !
London Colin
Well-Known Member
Thanks, assume_R. I think that's a very good summary.
Some of the further complications I've been trying to get my head around are -
Rather than two sets - the believable and the unbelievable - you could imagine a sliding scale of believability, with a certain amount of disagreement among people about what lies where on that scale. E.g., is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 more or less believable than 29,29,.... ?
That makes a real mockery of any attempts to quantify just how unlikely a particular result was. First you have to get a consensus on how many other results have the same degree of unbelievability!
Although our notions of believability are arbitrary as you say, and there is the potential for subjective assessments and disagreements, nevertheless there will mostly be a lot of agreement on what constitutes a truly 'unbelievable' event. Our brains are all on the lookout for patterns, and any clear pattern that flows from one number to the next along a lengthy sequence will get our attention in a big way!
That being said, there is still some scope for subjective views, even here. If the sequence had been 8,8,8,8,8,8,8, rather than 29,29,29,29,29,29,29, those present would probably not have seen that as any more remarkable. And objectively it certainly isn't any more remarkable. But suppose the casino had been in Macau. Eight being considered a lucky number among the Chinese, and such things being taken very seriously, I imagine there would have been pandemonium!
In cases like that I suppose we can argue that the coincidence of a sequence appearing before an audience that is predisposed to imbue it with extra significance is objectively a rarer event than having that sequence appear just anywhere.
And similarly, and I think at the crux of the debate in this thread, you can argue that the appearance of a sequence that forms any kind of attention-grabbing pattern, regardless of the audience, is itself a coincidence of sorts. The entire human race is predispoded to imbue certain patterns with extra significance.
Some of the further complications I've been trying to get my head around are -
Rather than two sets - the believable and the unbelievable - you could imagine a sliding scale of believability, with a certain amount of disagreement among people about what lies where on that scale. E.g., is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 more or less believable than 29,29,.... ?
That makes a real mockery of any attempts to quantify just how unlikely a particular result was. First you have to get a consensus on how many other results have the same degree of unbelievability!
Although our notions of believability are arbitrary as you say, and there is the potential for subjective assessments and disagreements, nevertheless there will mostly be a lot of agreement on what constitutes a truly 'unbelievable' event. Our brains are all on the lookout for patterns, and any clear pattern that flows from one number to the next along a lengthy sequence will get our attention in a big way!
That being said, there is still some scope for subjective views, even here. If the sequence had been 8,8,8,8,8,8,8, rather than 29,29,29,29,29,29,29, those present would probably not have seen that as any more remarkable. And objectively it certainly isn't any more remarkable. But suppose the casino had been in Macau. Eight being considered a lucky number among the Chinese, and such things being taken very seriously, I imagine there would have been pandemonium!
In cases like that I suppose we can argue that the coincidence of a sequence appearing before an audience that is predisposed to imbue it with extra significance is objectively a rarer event than having that sequence appear just anywhere.
And similarly, and I think at the crux of the debate in this thread, you can argue that the appearance of a sequence that forms any kind of attention-grabbing pattern, regardless of the audience, is itself a coincidence of sorts. The entire human race is predispoded to imbue certain patterns with extra significance.
Indeed, London. If the Fibonacci sequence came up in roulette, I admit I'd be slightly more amused than another sequence :laugh: but this entire discussion is based on subjectivity. The chance of seven 8's coming up in a row is equally probable in a Chinese casino as it is in an American casino. Hence, the chance of seven 8's coming up in a row, and the majority of a particular casino's patrons having a predisposition for believing it's lucky, is either the same or a smaller probability (since it's an and operation).
I like the idea of a pattern-seeking brain. Our brain is much more older than the gaming industry (which itself is maybe a few thousand years old).
Being able to see patterns is a large survival benefit (everytime the lion is seen, on the other day someone is missing). So being able to perceive patterns is favoured by evolution. Moreover seeing patterns where none are existing is not much of a disadvantage to survival. You won't be eaten if you run to often.
Not seeing an "obvious" pattern is a heavily disadvantage, while misinterpreting a pattern often has no consequences. Since our brain is a product of our environment (simply by evolution), our perception is BIASED towards patterns. We want to see patterns, and we are happy if we spot them (thinking that we did figure something out).
Being able to see patterns is a large survival benefit (everytime the lion is seen, on the other day someone is missing). So being able to perceive patterns is favoured by evolution. Moreover seeing patterns where none are existing is not much of a disadvantage to survival. You won't be eaten if you run to often.
Not seeing an "obvious" pattern is a heavily disadvantage, while misinterpreting a pattern often has no consequences. Since our brain is a product of our environment (simply by evolution), our perception is BIASED towards patterns. We want to see patterns, and we are happy if we spot them (thinking that we did figure something out).
aslan
Well-Known Member
Certainly l have a poor command of the English language in that you do not seem to understand what i said. I do not find 7 identical numbers per se to be any more remarkable than any other 7 number sequence. That does not diminish the fact that seven 7's at roulette is remarkable. The popular mind does seem to have a tendency to categorize. So the mind may put all 7-digit numbers of regular patterns into one category, and all numbers of apparently haphazard arrangement into another. Hence, 7777777, 1234567, and 1212121 might be in the regular pattern category, and 6359782, 5366382, and 9132754 might best fit the haphazard or unordered category. As between these two categories, I believe you would agree that haphazard arrangements far exceed those of regular patterns. So you could say that a pattern like 7777777 is far more unlikely to occur than a haphazard arrangement. I believe that this is what the popular mind is seeing and remarking on. In this light seven 7's at roulette is truly remarkable, even more so than In the sense of just being a 7-digit sequence. In fact, it is hugely more rare than the run-of-the-mill haphazardly arranged 7-digit number.assume_R said:
aslan
Well-Known Member
Language is full of patterns. Perhaps there is a bias toward patterns because it is believed that patterns more likely have some intelligence or meaning behind them, or at least a meaning that we might be able to discern with some study. When we try to solve one of those code problems in the newspaper, what is the first thing we look for-- a pattern. If there are several three letter words of the same letters, we might conclude that they are probably a common three letter word, such as, the or and or for.MangoJ said:
Many see the order of the universe as evidence of an intelligent first cause. Others see chaos in the universe as evidence that there is no God. Both sides see order (pattern?) as possibly symptomatic of meaning.
alwayssplitaces
Well-Known Member
One time I was playing poker and got pocket queens over 10 times in one night, including 3 times in a row to everyone's disbelief. They were flopping a set often. I got nicknamed "pocket queens guy" and every time I raised preflop people said "he's got queens again". I even changed seats at the same table and the pocket queens followed me.
It's just a statistical abnormality. I haven't seen pocket queens for the past month now.
It's just a statistical abnormality. I haven't seen pocket queens for the past month now.
FLASH1296
Well-Known Member
My wife and I were playing poker at the Stratosphere.
My wife got payed $100 for having her "Pocket Rockets"
"cracked". This occurred three (3) in about 90 mins.
She collected $300 in all. Very Neat!
It is 220 to 1 odds to be dealt pocket Aces.
She played for about 90 minutes — at a rate
of an assumed 30 hands per hour.
So she should have "seen" the "Pocket Rockets"
0.14 times (on average) — with a<?> big standard deviation.
However she should have won, I imagine, approx.
one (1) of those three (3) hands.
So … she had Aces at about 7 times the normal rate and won
with them perhaps 3 times the expected frequency.
The compound probability of these circumstance would
I think, be one in 21 times, converting to odds, I get 20-1.
At the table, it FELT like much longer odds .
My wife got payed $100 for having her "Pocket Rockets"
"cracked". This occurred three (3) in about 90 mins.
She collected $300 in all. Very Neat!
It is 220 to 1 odds to be dealt pocket Aces.
She played for about 90 minutes — at a rate
of an assumed 30 hands per hour.
So she should have "seen" the "Pocket Rockets"
0.14 times (on average) — with a<?> big standard deviation.
However she should have won, I imagine, approx.
one (1) of those three (3) hands.
So … she had Aces at about 7 times the normal rate and won
with them perhaps 3 times the expected frequency.
The compound probability of these circumstance would
I think, be one in 21 times, converting to odds, I get 20-1.
At the table, it FELT like much longer odds .