Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**ybot****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-29
- Posts: 49

4sd has a lower probabily but I often have 3sd at 1000 o 2000 and after 1000 to 3000 more trials we get 4sd.

The cause we could input to smart predictions

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,032

It is possible to go up with a bigger sample size like 4000.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**ybot****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-29
- Posts: 49

Why not?

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,032

It is possible to go up to outside 4 sd or more with a bigger sample.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**ybot****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-29
- Posts: 49

It is very unlikely but isn't impossible.

Supose I know things that other people don't.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,032

Hi;

All I am saying is that it is possible to get closer to the average or further away from it. I am not making any other comment.

Of course you can have a sample that is 1 standard deviation away from the average with 1000 spins and 3 standard deviations away with 2000 spins. That could happen.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**ybot****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-29
- Posts: 49

What about 4 st dev in 2000?

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,032

Sure, it can go to anything. What is it you want to know?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**ybot****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-29
- Posts: 49

These events are phisics related.

The sd number will rise, is where you realise that you are facing a non-random event.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,032

That is not exactly how it works. As I said as the sample size goes up the sd goes up. That is normal. Whether or not it is outside of 3 or 4 standard deviations is what counts.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**ybot****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-29
- Posts: 49

There is where I don't catch the relations.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,032

The standard deviation is not what is important, what is important is how far your result is from the average. In your case 44 is more than 3 sd from the average (27) that means it only has 1 chance in 380 of being a random event. But that is not 0.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**ybot****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-29
- Posts: 49

In addition to be far 3 or 4 sd from the average we must beat the house edge(he) first(2,7%) and get some extra % of profit.

To achieve it we need to be further from the average.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,032

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about right now. That is a separate question.

We are talking about standard deviation and I presume randomness.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**ybot****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-29
- Posts: 49

The conection between them makes hard to undestand what we witness

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,032

Not really. Based on the single sample you gave me of 44 out of 1000 hits with a probability of 1 / 37 I have answered the question. There is a only a 1 in 380 chance that that occurred by chance. Whether you feel that is enough is up to you. As I said it is not impossible that wheel is okay, just unlikely.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**ybot****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-29
- Posts: 49

What about 48/1000?

Sometimes it happens that you have 38/1000(2sd), then you have 73/2000(2.5sd), 108/3000(3sd) and 149/4000(4sd). It rises.

149/4000 means an "hipotetic" +34% edge

48/1000(4sd) looks stronger with its +72.8%

Both %s are not actually true. I want to know how it works

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,032

What about 48/1000?

That would be more than 4 sd away from the average. The chance that could happen by chance is about 1 / 15780. Quite rare.

48/1000(4sd) looks stronger with its +72.8%

You cannot yet assume that the sample mean is the actual average.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**ybot****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-29
- Posts: 49

Quite rare for random events, widespread for non-random facts.

27/1000 is the average, no doubt.

48/1000 is possible

Supose you find a bigger pocket

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,032

Because the sample size is larger than 30, in this case it is 1000, I would say we can expect that the true mean of that number to be 6/125 rather than 1 / 37.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**ybot****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-29
- Posts: 49

1/20.83?(6/125) Why?

What is the difference between 1/20.83 or 48/1000?

We use to have more than 30.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,032

What is the difference between 1/20.83 or 48/1000?

No difference, except usually you do not use decimals.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**ybot****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-29
- Posts: 49

I undestand why you as yourself and think I'm mad.

I work with non-random events daily.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,032

No I do not. I was a [deleted].

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**ybot****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-29
- Posts: 49

So, as a [deleted], playing the basic strategy you would be able to be +1,5% over the HE.

And, as a [deleted] you could have a range of advantage over other regular players.

How do you know when you have the edge and how much?

At a moment in the year/month/decade you can say that you have (for example) 5% edge over any other player or the house. How would you gauge it?

Offline