Lady Luck may be alluring, but she is not “fair”.
1 Like
I recall that one casino tried to introduce a third zero (‘000’) on some of their roulette wheels, but none of their customers wanted to bet on it.
2 Likes
No, it’s not a wrong question. It’s just a question you refuse to answer.
Do you think we could use statistics to determine if the results deviate from equal chance?
Those two paragraphs contradict each other.
That’s a completely unfounded and unevidenced claim and it shows a complete ignorance of how probabilities work. For roulette, if the outcomes of each roll were fair then the house would have a 5.26% overall edge over the player because of the 0 and 00 are automatic wins for the house (European roulette often just has the 0 so less of a house edge). These are the odds the casino relies on for profit. They don’t use past results. They use the probability of the game itself.
3 Likes
One of my favorite examples is the updated boards at each table that track the last 5 or so outcomes. If people see a long run of red or black they think one of those is due, even though each outcome is independent of all past outcomes.
It’s also worth mentioning that there are roulette advantage players that will track results at just one table over many outcomes. They will then use statistical algorithms to determine if there is an inherent bias towards different spots on the wheel and bet on those clusters. This was common for older roulette wheels, but I believe there is much more stringent control and testing to prevent this from occurring on modern tables. The important part here is that statistics can tell you if there is a deviation from even chance.
4 Likes
They don’t die. They survive and then grow back, and this is due to mutations that occurred prior to being exposed to phage. At the macro level, when you add phage to a denser and cloudy liquid culture you will initially see the culture go from cloudy to clear because all but a handful of bacteria are susceptible to phage infection and they lyse (i.e. pop like a baloon). It’s the handful of bacteria out of hundreds of billions that then grow back.
1 Like
Need I say more?
You do not take any notie.
Richard
If you want to leave the impression that you are dogmatically wrong, then you don’t need to say more.
You think that anyway.
Don’t bother to ask me anything again
Richard
Then don’t post false claims.
Shall we contest for the last word as well?
(If you respond you win that as well)
Richard
This does not make sense - such an experiment would mean not all of the bacteria are infected. To demonstrate another conclusion, they would need to isolate the mutated (?) ones and demonstrate that while infected they do not die.
Correct, the bacteria with specific phage resistance mutations are not infected. They were able to observe a lack of phage binding to the phage resistant bacteria. Later work in the modern era was able to show these mutations occurred in the proteins that the phage binds to which prevented infection.
I don’t see why that would be the case. If the mutation stopped the phage from ever infecting the bacterium then why isn’t this a mutation conferring phage resistance? It’s similar to the mechanism of HIV resistance in humans where there are mutations in the human cell surface protein that the virus binds to.
1 Like
From what I have seen so far, it shows that the sample was a mixture (call it bacteria A, and B) and B was not infected. I wonder what happened to the bacteria A plus phage - was this in some way relevant to the observations (e.g. did the phage die with A? what does it mean these pathogens die?) I assume that they cease to reproduce, but then we have B to consider.
Note I am responding to your reference which includes two diagrams.
Last time I was at a casino (for the cheap lunch buffet!) I learned that the roulette wheels they have do use magnets to damp out any micro-wobbles due to wear and keep them “fair” longer, also that the casinos have to keep track and if any bias greater than some tiny amount shows the gaming commission here requires the wheel to be refurbished.
The reason is simple: they depend on the probabilities working properly! Any deviation gives the better an advantage.
Then you should provide some substance to take notice of!
And actually learn some mathematics; most of what you’ve claimed about probability and statistics is just wrong.
Prezactly.
1 Like
I.e. don’t be like a YEC who makes claims but provides no substance but instead insists that wrong things are actually correct.
Wasn’t this sort of thing first discovered when someone who saw a dead culture decided to leave it alone, with the result that it grew back despite having appeared to be gone? and thus they concluded that some bacteria (or whatever) had possessed resistance?
Not quite: the sample was known to be a single species; what was not known was that among bacteria A there was lurking A’ that happened to be already resistant. Repeat that enough generations, getting A’‘, A’‘’, etc. and you might end up with bacteria B, a new species.
[I really wish I knew if that ranger with his arsenic-metabolizing bacteria had pursued his work to see if he had a new species or not!]
1 Like
If there is a long run on black, there are two strategies: one is to bet on black a winner; the other is to bet on red,because it is “due”. Or maybe bet on 0 and/or 00 - there must be some “theory” for that, too.
After A was destroyed you have A’ - wouldn’t you have to destroy A’ (while some A" was lurking?), and how would the resistant A’ loose its resistance so that A" would be dominant and repeat the thing until bacteria B, a new species was created?
As a scientist I find such thinking is incoherent. It does not make sense to claim that initialy phage killed off the bacteria and then claim not all of it was killed. Initially they started with a mixture (without realising) and the ‘lurking’ lot was not killed.
Biologists are very, very good at getting “pure” cultures.
Lie I said, there can be a “run” when a number appears more often, but to bet on it is to ignore the overall odds, whereas to back a numer that has not occured for a while is to follow the odds.
Some people will cover O just ecause no one else wins with it. There is no real “logic” for it. O has no more chance of coming up thatnnan other number.
The fact is that the “odds” or probabiliry are accurate over time, but not necessaruly over a short time… The ball has no memeory so every roll has the same odds regardless of what happenerd before. For a single or one time bet you are in the hands of lady luck. A single number will come up regarless of the odds for or gainsit it. a singe number is 1:35, but in terms of chance that can occur at any time, but it dos not mean that there will be always 34 misses first.
At the end of the day, there is no real “strategy” to winning (guaranteed winning), unlike Poker.
Richard
It is this fallacy , that 1:35 means there will always be 34 misses first, that makes the use of probability for predictions unreliable…Odds and prbabilty are based on an extended period of time and a large numer of repetitions. Any sinlge “bet” or prediction cannot be made for certain using odds/probability, but it is the best “bet” we have.
For a detailed analysis please follwo this link Rolette Odds and payout