Offer to Fa La La La La.... La la la la: Results (5th card flip)

[seagreen33]

That 154 roll in craps by Grandma before sevening out was accomplished by a legendary dice controller whose name escapes me at this time. But you could research her and others like her on Frank Scoblete's website, Golden Touch Craps.



 
There is absolutely no comparison here as dice controllers have more of a house edge at craps than the best card counting teams do at blackjack.
 
Besides, I still think the likelihood of Grandma having another 154 roll before sevening out is much more probable than one pulling back to back royals on a single line VP machine, being that she has control of the dice and the vp player has no control over the RNG.
 
 
If I could post the active link, I would, but this Grandma had only shot dice once before and her rolls are on surveillance vid at the Borgata.
 
This was only 2 months ago.
 
They should pixalate the people's faces and market the vid.
 
Here is a link, but I doubt it will show as "simply Click".::::
 
 http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 63,00.html

[New2vp]

 

And since I agree with all sides on this question, I will attempt to provide my reasons for not doubting any unlikely claim and also agreeing with most, if not all, the posts I've read here going way back. You cannot agree with all sides on this question.  Well, it's your belief system.  I guess you can agree that Fa La La La La.... La la la la lied about conducting his experiment and you can also agree that he didn't lie about it; but in that case, I'm not so sure that I want to learn about logic from you.  By saying you agree to all sides to the argument in question, when one side is the opposite of the other, you have truly entered the realm where the term impossible can be safely used with no ambiguity.  This is no longer in the realm of miniscule probability but is a direct contradiction.  This is like saying that all of Grandma's tosses were sevens and at the same time were not sevens.  You may want to get to work on that edit key here because otherwise it's difficult to ascertain what you mean here.This is a type of Zen that is not helpful in predicting video poker results  Now, anecdotal support. What event which recently occurred in gambling had the odds of 1in 1.56 trillion?
As Eduardo indicated earlier, 1.56 trillion pales in comparison with 5 septillion.  If the lady's run at the dice table was twice as long, it would still be more likely than 1 chance in 5 septillion.  Try again, but what is important is whether you can tell me something about what will occur in the future not the past.  Many things do happen all the time randomly.  But here we were trying to test whether or not there was something other than randomness going on.Do you believe that her next run next month will be as long?  That is the decision here.   If you believe that she is more capable of long runs than others, then there is something other than randomness going on, like the ability to set the dice that damule speaks of.   Unlikely things that happened in the past either happened with probability 1 or didn't happen (probability of zero).  That is what we are trying to determine here.  Did the 40000-rep experiment produce 40% flipovers or didn't it (if it was even run)?  A sworn affidavit of something witnessed by one person is not as strong of evidence as the viewing and corroboration of results by two individuals on opposite sides of an argument.When an assumption is made and the results from the test of that assumption indicate results this unlikely, such assumptions are routinely rejected in favor of other assumptions that are more reasonable in light of results of that experiment.Events happen all the time that when strung together have extremely high odds.  A well-shuffled deck of 52 cards has 8 x 10^67 different outcomes, so each particular outcome is less likely to occur than other events that have been discussed.  And of course, if you don't lose any of the cards, one of those outcomes, as unlikely as it is, will occur.  Before you think this is evidence to help your argument, read on.That a deck must be in some order, however unlikely, is not analogous to the situation under discussion.  Here is an outline.1.  There are two different beliefs, randomness and biasedness.2.  An experiment, verified by the two different believers, is held to determine which belief is more likely to be true.3.  They agree as to the results. 4.a.  The experiment indicates that you could have had such extreme results under the biased belief only 1 time in 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times.4b.  The experiment produces a number, that under the randomness belief is as close to what is expected as possible, due to the requirement that the number of flipovers be a whole number.So, which one are you going to pick?  Sorry, you can't pick both.  You still have never said why you would believe the unlikely assumption in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it unless your first paragraph truly has you believing both contradictory assumptions simultaneously.All this blather is making the case that I brought up in the post right before you appeared in this thread.  Debating Fa La La La La.... La la la la's claims is useless; it's all been done before and is not worthy of serious consideration.  By the way, there are many more salient points in that post than this silly flipover hoax.I look for ways to change my belief set all the time.  It is called learning.  It's just that I don't find enough credibility for me to change my thoughts in this situation.  Now, the crazy part of the challenge was for anyone to believe it could
be replicated, even if in RS's "home trials", he obtained the results
he said. That is why Webman's statement regarding inconclusiveness is
brilliant.True science is all about repeatable, predictable results, even if the results themselves have an element of randomness.  The 40% assumption should be easy to prove and observe.  It takes only an hour or two to determine if there is an easy rejection of this theory in favor of randomness, as was shown by the experiment of only 180 observations.  It was easy to reject an assumption of more than 40% flipover with relatively few observations.If you're trying to indicate there was just bad fortune in finding 40% flipovers in a sample of 40,000 observations when the machines were actually random, that is less believable and astromomically more unlikely than what we saw with the 180 reps.  If you ever saw Spaceballs, we would then be in the realm of Ludicrous-ly small.But if you think 40% flipovers help you in determining how or whether to play video poker, more power to you.  I believe in the freedom to choose, whether it's right or wrong.  Best of luck; I hope you get the better side of random in the near future.

[seagreen33]

My friends here,
 
New2, I hope you are making a ton of money, or are at least, you are most happy.
 
To the "problem".::
 
If you accept the claim that RS makes, then replicating it is a waste of time.
 
If you refute the claim that RS makes, then trying to accomplish it is a waste of time.
 
Can we all say, "Waste of time?"
 
GL to all, now and forever.

[cddenver]

 
To the "problem".::
 
If you accept the claim that RS makes, then replicating it is a waste of time.
 
If you refute the claim that RS makes, then trying to accomplish it is a waste of time.
 
 
So, since both your statements recommend that trying to duplicate his claimed 40% flip rate is a waste of time, I guess the official RS-line is that he'd prefer not to have people checking on his claim?  Why is that?  I thought that he was on a constant search for truth, and corroboration from others never hurts.
 
As to your second statement, one refutes claims like his by verifiable testing.  That's not a waste of time.
 
 

[seagreen33]

you can't verify a statistical improbability, except on paper.

[cddenver]

you can't verify a statistical improbability, except on paper.



 
With the super-long odds on this one the much safer bet is that he just made it all up. 
 
Have you checked with RS to see if it's ok for you to push this new theory?  That machines are operating randomly and that his claimed results are just at the far, far, far, far, far, far end of a probability curve?  He doesn't like his "reflections" coming up with new ideas on their own, they're expected to toe the line when it comes sharing his basic beliefs.
 
His oft-stated view on the subject of "flips" is that they are a manifestation of machines not being random, so you shouldn't be trying to portray his claimed results to be at all improbable - anyone caring to keep their own "flip" records should see the same or similar "flip" rate.   And the one verifiable test that's been done showed that's not the case.

[cddenver]

you can't verify a statistical improbability, except on paper.


 
Oh!  Sea_dude, I was also going to say that I'm glad we've agreed that RS would prefer that people not try to verify any claims of his whether they believe the claims or not.  If it makes him feel better to say it's "just a waste of time" that's his choice.   Another way of looking at it is that verifiable tests like the one with our WM can give results tough for him to explain away. 
 
That will be one additional piece of info I'll pass on to any newbies who ask me about RS.  I'll tell them that his reason is that it's just a waste of time; I'll put forth my own view that people who don't think they should be checked up on are the very first ones who should be looked at. 

[seagreen33]

And so we totally agree, that you can't replicate, simulate, recreate, duplicate what may be or is, however so unlikely, improbable or unbelievable, by a physical re-enactment of anything statistically improbable, by definition. 
 
 
That being said, what possibilities remain:
 
It happened, can't be proven or replicated.
 
It never happened, can't be proven one way or the other.
 
It never happened, easily replicated.
 
Yes you can replicate what has never happened.
 
Can you replicate what has happened? Depends on the odds.
 
So therefore, you are more likely to replicate what didn't happen than what did, IF, you are attemptimg to replicate a statistical improbability.
 
 
Note: I hold no animosity towards anyone on this board, unless you are my goofball next door neighboor.

[cddenver]

And we totally agree, but you can't replicate, simulate, recreate, duplicate what may be or is, however so unlikely, improbable, unbelievable by a physical re-enactment of anything statistically improbable, by definition. 

 
Make it easy on yourself.  A "re-enactment" is only possible if there was an initial "enactment".  The first verifiable "flip" test (not a virtual test!) was the the one with our Webman.  And, surprise, it showed an expected rate of flips.  For both the verified test rate and RS's own claimed 40% "flip" rate to be correct carries odds of something like 5 septillion to one - also known as impossible.  You mentioned a craps longshot earlier with odds of a trillion to one; a septillion has many more zeroes in it.  And each additional zero means the event is 10 times less likely.   In an e-letter that just arrived RS says the test numbers were cooked.  I quite agree!  The only question is whose numbers were so treated.
 
So what does RS propose for a solution?  To run around Arizona and Nevada casinos claiming more testing on his own when it's clear that the majority of people involved in these "flip" discussions believe the numbers he already has are made up!  Now, what kind of solution is that?
 
If he's really interested in the truth of the matter he should arrange more testing with skeptics.  Sea_dude, do you want to guess what the results of such tests would be wherever they might be done?  Hmm?  Didn't think so.  What possible explanation could he use when every test with a skeptic/critic present shows an expected "flip" rate instead of 40%?  We were very surprised that he showed up for one test (knowing what the results would be).  He's probably learned from that particular experience, but then he might surprise us again by appearing for some additional tests.
 
SM, please put in a post or two saying that he wouldn't dare show for any further tests.  That might get him. 
 

[seagreen33]

I get your point, and respect it.
 
Why do you dismiss my point?