Categories
Life

Solving the Original Buffon Needle Problem By The Method of Area Ratios

According to G. Timothy Hushion, founder of Cracking Pi, L.L.C., at crackingpi.com, the original Buffon Needle Problem (or Buffon Needle Experiment) was:

Je suppose que dans une chambre, dont le parquet est simplement divise par des joints paralleles, on jette en l’air une baguette, & que l’un des joucurs parie que la baguette ne croisera aucune des paralleles du parquet, & que l’autre au contraire parie que la baguette croisera quelques-unes de ces paralleles; on demande le sort de ces deux joucurs.

Translated into English:

With a series of equidistant parallel lines, if two players want an even chance a randomly dropped needle will cross a line, how long must the needle be?

(Compare the above to the modern version of the problem as presented today: Wikipedia: Buffon Needle Problem.)

Mr. Hushion believes the solution to the problem as originally expressed by Buffon is the key to understanding randomness.  At his website, he writes extensively about the history and implications of the original problem, as well as his experiences applying it to solve problems involving probability, including games of chance, such as roulette and baccarat, as well as the stock market and random number generators.

While G. T. Hushion states the solution to the problem is that the length is “one fourth of the circle described between and just touching two adjacent lines, that is, 1/4 C”, nowhere on his site does he present Buffon’s original deductive proof.

In the following, I offer a proof for the original Buffon Needle Problem using the method of the ratio of phase space areas.  (Using probability densities is another way to solve the problem, but using area ratios seems more intuitive.)

First, we define the following geometry of the problem:

Geometry of the Buffon Needle Problem
Geometry of the Buffon Needle Problem

D = distance between two parallel lines;

l = the length of the needle, where the origin point of the needle is taken to be that of the end closer to the lower line;

d = the vertical coordinate of  the origin point of the needle, where d=0 is the vertical coordinate of the parallel line below the needle, and d=D is that of the line above it;

θ = the angle the longitudinal axis of the needle makes with the axis of the parallel lines, where θ=0 is defined to be when the needle and lines are pointing in the same direction, and θ=π/2 (radians, one quarter turn counter-clockwise from θ=0), when they are perpendicular.

It clearly follows from the geometry of the problem that the criteria for the needle to touch a line is:

                         d ≥ D - l sinθ

That is, if the needle’s vertical coordinate equals or exceeds the vertical position with the value of (D – l sinθ), then the needle must cross a line, as can be clearly seen from the geometry of the problem.

With the criteria for the solution clearly defined, we can next draw the phase space of all possible coordinates d vs. θ of the needle to determine the relevant areas needed to calculate the desired probability.

Phase Space of the Buffon Needle Problem
Phase Space of the Buffon Needle Problem

The total area A1 of the phase space defined by d vs. θ is simply that of the area of the rectangular region bounded by sides of length D and π, and so straightforwardly,

                         A1 = πD

Since the needle crosses a line whenever d ≥ D – l sinθ, the area A2 of the above phase space which represents the coordinates where the needle crosses a line is the area which is bounded by the curve
(l sinθ) from θ = 0 to θ = π.  A2 is the cyan-colored region in the above graph of the phase space.

Integrating over the two limits, we determine this area is:

                         A2 = ∫(l sinθ) dθ
                            = - l cosθ (from θ =0 to θ =π)
                            = - l { (-1) - (1) }
                            = 2 l

Thus, the probability P of the needle crossing a line is simply the ratio of A2/A1:

                          P = A2/A1 
                            = (2 l)/(πD)

Setting P = 1/2 to satisfy the equal-chances condition of Buffon’s original question, we thus find:

                          P = 1/2 
                            = (2 l)/(πD)

Solving for the desired length of the needle l, we find:

                          l = (πD)/4

Since the circumference C of the circle with diameter D equal to the distance between two parallel lines is C = πD, we thus finally arrive at the desired answer:

                          l = C/4
                           Q.E.D.

Stated explicitly, then, the solution to the original Buffon Needle Problem is that, in order for it to have equal chances of hitting a line, the needle’s length should be one-quarter of the circumference of the circle which is contained by and tangent to two adjacent lines.

44 replies on “Solving the Original Buffon Needle Problem By The Method of Area Ratios”

Thanks, honeybooboo,

That reminds me of the old saying,

You can lie with statistics, but statistics never lies.

In other words, someone can use math to deceive by promoting only that part of it which supports what he’s preaching, but the math itself taken as a whole objectively and honestly is always true, something which no one can warp.

I’m guessing that comment was directed at me since it makes no sense otherwise.

No student who has studied and practiced directly under me has ever called me a scammer. It is always guys I’ve never heard of. Likewise, no one who has watched me play has ever called me a scammer. They know better. Some thought beating a casino would be easy. That is naive. You need to know exactly what you are doing and why – Just like any other profession. The more you study and practice, the luckier you get. Not for everyone. You need to be insanely devoted.

Hmm … I didn’t associate honeybooboo’s comment with you until your inference.

Not sure he was directing it at you, since in the context of the post, a proof was provided that could be objectively verified as true, and thus not a scam.

But I can see how it may be interpreted the way you did.

Interesting …

Could be you’re right. Maybe I’m over sensitive. Let’s hear from honeybooboo.

My comment was meant as a general accolade for this site. This site is the only honest place on the web about casino games of chance.

Anyone selling a system, method or idea sold as “unique” and something that can can win over time despite a negative house vig, is a scammer. Dave has proven that point. Whether or not you are ‘sensitive” to that opinion is not within my control.

Of course there are other direct accusations about your truthfulness that were made in other topics on this website that you have yet to address.

Hmmm, looks like I was right Dave.

Sorry Honeybooboo, If someone called me a liar on this sight I missed it.

To each his own but I don’t call Bac negative expectation. Even in random cards every bet has a 50% average chance of winning. Yes, we pay the house to deal the cards. We also pay the waitress to bring drinks and we pay gas money to get to the casino along with other expenses. But none of those effect the 50/50 bet odds. We also pay the casino to deal poker but we don’t call poker negative expectation just because we pay them to deal. Why so with Bac?

So what exactly are you saying Honeybooboo? – That we should only sell ideas that are NOT unique?

BTW, your definition of a scammer leaves a lot to be desired. Dave has played with me. He stated his opinions quite clearly. Perhaps you missed those 40 pages.

Mathematically speaking, baccarat is certainly a negative expectancy game. The negative expectancies are universally known, easily calculated, tabulated throughout the internet (e.g. the canonical -1.06% for always betting Banker, -1.24% for always betting Player), as well as experimentally determined via simulations of the kind I have performed and posted here.

Ellis, your analogy between commissions and expenses is appreciated, but remember that the 5% commissions is an expense on every banker win, and its express purpose is to make the banker bet negative expectancy for you in the long run.

True, commissions doesn’t affect the odds, but they are there because of the odds.

Expectancies for Poker cannot be compared to baccarat due to the differences in the nature of the games.

Well, I would certainly consider BJ negative expectation when Basic Strategy has only a 43% hands won rate. You can’t even begin to make up that kind of deficit with your BJs or DDs. Perfect Basic Strategy loses perfectly. The negative expectation is built into the game itself. The same with craps, roulette and all casino games. But assuming you bet equally on Bank and player Baccarat is dead 50/50 plus commission of 1.25%. To me this distinguishes Bac from all other casino games where the negative expectation is built in.

To me Baccarat commission itself is not part and parcel to the game anymore than your room rate which is based on your play hours – all interrelated. Certainly W/O commission most would agree that Baccarat is not negative expectancy. But is that even true? Horseshoe, Vegas stopped charging commission for quite a spell. The players still lost. Internationally Bac players lose at the rate of about 25% of their chip purchases (drop). But commission is only 1.25 % of your money bet. Certainly it isn’t commission alone that causes players to lose at that incredible rate. So, should we say that Bac is 25% negative expectation based on worldwide play??? I think what we are really arguing is semantics. But anyone who chooses to call Bac negative expectation, that is perfectly OK with me. Hey, it makes my wins sound better.

Here is what I teach and I think it is pretty hard to argue with: “Count your money before you leave home. Count it again when you get back home. The difference is what you won or lost.”

Ellis,

The drop and the theoretical expectancy are two different things entirely. It’s entirely consistent that the drop is a very different value than the theoretical expectancy. (We had this discussion at BTC already. Should I make this another topic for a post?)

Also, you keep quoting 25% for the drop as if that were the all-time, world-wide value for the drop. No, that may have occurred for a single quarter at a specific casino (or family of casinos). The published drop varies quarter by quarter, location by location. (The actual drop varies decision by decision!) Some quarters, the drop can be even negative due to the volatility. Some casinos even refuse to offer baccarat at all or offer a limited number of tables (or impose strict table limits) to reduce their exposure to the volatility.

See references:

July 2010 UNLV Baccarat Study

2010 Las Vegas Sun article: Las Vegas Strip casinos see lowest win since 2003.

Dave

Care to explain this comment (imspirit.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/why-any-progression-must-fail-for-negative-expectancy-games-in-the-long-run/#comment-1835), Ellis?

“So what exactly are you saying Honeybooboo? – That we should only sell ideas that are NOT unique?”

No. You shouldn’t be selling a gambling system at all. And judging by your emotional reply you know what you doing is
wrong.

“I seriously doubt Dave has ever called anyone a scammer”

Dave has called many system sellers scammers. You really need to read the whole blog again.

I have no idea HBB, I got it from you.

Emotional??? That’ll be the day. I’m about the coolest guy you’ll never meet. Ask Dave.

Dave? Proved me a scammer? I seriously doubt Dave has ever called anyone a scammer, including me. But I can see how you could get that wrong: “Master Player” vs Scammer. Gee, they sound so much alike.

For the record, I would define a “scammer” as someone who intentionally deceives someone else, where the scammer knows full well what he is trying to sell does not do what he claims.

For example, in the context of baccarat systems sellers, a good example of who I would consider a scammer would be Izak Matatya.

By this definition, I would personally not regard Ellis as a scammer, because he certainly believes what he is teaching is true, which is based on his actual experience and expertise in gaming. Whether or not it actually is true is certainly open to debate, but at least he firmly believes it is, and he believes his is helping others by sharing it. Win or lose, there can be no doubt Ellis puts his money where his mouth is.

Whether or not a student trying to learn from Ellis is able to become as successful a gambler is a whole other matter. For example, I tried, and I failed. My failure is certainly not Ellis’ fault, as he above all had the highest hopes I would succeed, and he tried his best to mentor me the best he could. So, I never had the impression he was ever out to intentionally deceive me. If anything, he was willing to openly put his reputation on the line by transparently playing side by side with me.

True, he does appear to discount his losing sessions, selectively emphasizing his winning ones, but I guess that is just human nature, and to greater or lesser extent, we have all committed the same bias. After all, it is so universal that psychologists had to slap a label on it: selective memory.

Right or wrong, Ellis is certainly a genuine Master of the game. I’ve only watched him play baccarat, and I’ve been told his blackjack is even better.

Likewise, I never regarded Mark Maverick as a scammer, because he also committed himself to helping me succeed as best he could.

Perhaps the person who scammed me the most was myself. With my background in math and science, I should have known better than to tempt the odds. But it was my naive hope that I could exceed the boundaries set by the numbers, and I thought I could do so by learning from Mark and Ellis, since they appeared to be the most genuine teachers available, putting their own money on the line. True or false, they shared what they understood about the game, learned from their own tuition at the tables. But I had to learn the hard way the true importance of sample size and statistical significance.

In the end, my hope was proven to be a fantasy of my own making. Indeed, we create our own realities. But at least I learned a lot about myself, the game, and met a lot of great folks along the way.

I suppose I could write a whole series of posts to better expound on some of these ideas and lessons.

Dave

Don’t be beating yourself up Dave. As I understand it, due to your situation, you are forced to play with preshuffled cards or stakes that are too high. Given those poor choices I’d do the same – not play. I’m thinking that the only biased shoes you ever saw were when you played straight up Bac with me. I have often said that preshuffled cards should be illegal everywhere, noy just PA and NJ. Hell, how do you even know all the cards are there, let alone the specter of designer shoes.

“I appreciate how you keep bringing up the results of this trip. In those 6 shoes, I was there right beside you, following your every bet, so it is documented on record as authentic. You well deserve the accolades of a stellar performance that weekend.

However, if you’re going to keep emphasizing your performance during that trip, let’s be entirely objective and put these 6 shoes in proper perspective.

First, while you’re quick to remind us of your winnings in those shoes, you never mention the bloodbath suffered on the Friday night before the seminar officially began. Since I was still in transit to the seminar, I was not there to witness or document what had happened, but someone else who was there informed me that you kept losing, all discipline went out the door, and everyone (except Kevin who played his own system) lost a good deal of money.

Indeed, the next morning on Saturday when the official seminar began, I recall you were quite visibly dejected, somber, and apologetic about the disaster. Moreover, you had decided to not play at the casino Saturday night after the seminar, and you only rather reluctantly did so when Keith kept encouraging you to play.”

Care to comment Ellis on the above?

Sure: About a month before the seminar, working with the casino Mkt Mgr, we had reserved a seminar room in the casino for Saturday and we reserved their ten player table for Fri and Saturday night and all day Sunday. Keith and I had thoroughly checked out this new cards every shoe table several different days and found it to be highly susceptable to OTB4L. We easily won about 15 shoes played on different days.

A few days before the seminar the casino mgr notified us that they were reneging on the seminar room so we changed the seminar venue to the motel.

On Friday night after the opening dinner at the motel I went with the second group to the casino. Upon arriving I found our players playing a full mini bac floor table. Upon asking them why they were playing that table they told me it was the only table open and our reserved ten player table had been physically removed from the casino.

Upon hearing this sad news and because no seats were open, the group I came with got back in the motel van and went back to the party. I watched the game with the rest of our bystanders and examined the cards. The game was pretty much random with no runs to speak of calling for OTB4L. I sat in for Keith for a few hands but didn’t do any good.

After a while the pit boss said they were opening a new table. While I never play single tables and teach against it, new cards is a different thing. I made a quick 10 units at the new table and quit. Severl quit with me and we went back to the motel.

The next morning the guys brought their cards to the seminar. They had 5 or 6 but some were likely duplicates.I asked one of the players to read me the worst card play by play so I could play it on the board one play at a time. That is what Dave photographed – me playing that shoe. I played straight OTB4L and scored about 19.

Recognize that the guys playing at the casino were new members. They were there to learn NOR. They had no idea of what they were doing on Fri night.

As soon as we saw that the casino had removed our reserved table we should have left the casino and not come back. Playing with no table selection is pretty much suicidal. I never played that casino again after winning on Sat night.

Ellis said,
“Here is what I teach and I think it is pretty hard to argue with: “Count your money before you leave home. Count it again when you get back home. The difference is what you won or lost.”

Sigh.

Well, NOW Dave has called someone a scammer. If he has done this before, I missed it.

Izak Matatya and Mark E ???

I do not know Izak but I have been called upon to review some of his work: I have no knowledge of his business dealings, if any, or what he tells people so I can’t comment on whether he is a scammer or just plain incompetent. But his work I reviewed concentrated on betting with clever staking systems. It was stuff I was looking at 25 years ago and before I ever started teaching Bac. Most Bac teachers concentrate on betting. But there is no betting system, regardless how clever, that, by itself, can beat Bac. What you need to concentrate on is bet placement. Your random odds on each bet are 50/50. Your bet placement strategy must beat 50/50 to be of any value. This can only happen in biased shoes. Therefore table selection is pretty much everything. Yet no one teaches this other than me.

I learned table selection in BJ where it is even more important. In BJ, only about 20% of games are beatable. The trick is to identify those tables and only play tables you can beat.

The same is true in Bac. Anybody who says you can beat any table any time is either scamming you or incompetent. You can’t do that with ANY Bac system no matter how clever. So much for Izak.

I taught Mark E but only for about a year. He left half baked to go on his own. He taught RD1 vs anti RD1. He thought this would allow you to play ANY table. NO, RD1 does not follow any true bias. So neither does anti RD1. Whether a shoe follows one or the other is pure happenstance. You can’t beat this game with happenstance. You MUST have an edge going in. Like BJ you MUST know how to distinguish the tables you can beat from the tables you can’t. Sorry but that is how it is. There are no short cuts. In both games, table selection is everything. W/O it, it’s only a question of time.

Ellis,

Read again: I wrote I never regarded Mark Maverick as a scammer.

Another true blue scammer I have tried to warn others about in my posts goes by many pseudonyms, such as Craig Mayor and Steve Gowan. He is actually a member at BTC, who goes by the username justtryingtomakeit.

He operates by luring people with the promise he can make phenomenal returns playing baccarat. To “prove” his ability, he offers a live demonstration in Vegas with the mark’s bankroll. If he wins, he keeps half the winnings. If he loses, he excuses himself to the bathroom and then slips out the back door. He has figured out a way to win risk-free at other’s expense. He has been running this scam for years.

Sadly, he is just another example of many true scammers.

Dave

Right Dave! I didn’t mean to imply you said anything else. Just adding my 2 cents on what I know of those particular 2 guys.

As I recall, we banned justtryingtomakeit several years ago for constantly arguing with members. As you likely know, such behavior is not allowed at BTC. I think he went to BF where everyone calls us names. He should be right at home there.

Care to comment Ellis on the above?

Sure HBB. I don’t know about Kevin because I didn’t stay but there was only one table open that Fri night. The table we were scheduled to play through pre arrangement with the casino, a ten player new cards every shoe table was not only not open, it had been physically removed from the casino. This was likely because Keith and I had won about 15 straight shoes on this $25 table because the new card prep used highly favored OTB4L. This is quite common on such tables.

So there was only one table open. You can’t play NOR on only one table. It’s sorta like one hand clapping. I hit our stop loss of – 8 just in time for the casino to open a new table. New cards are often biased and I hit +10 in the first col of 20 plays and left for the motel. Besides, I was freezing. The rest of the players kept playing in spite of the fact that +10 is our stop win for a 123 progression. I hear it wasn’t pretty. That is why they are students.

LOL Sure Ellis. That’s what happened.

Why does your version differ so greatly from what others witnessed?

They must be lying huh.

Well, it doesn’t HBB for those who have reading comprehension. This might also explain your tribulations with Bac. Or it could be you spend too much time at BF. I never saw the shoe they lost until the next day. Anyone there can verify that. We have a strict -8 max stop loss. But alcohol and stop losses don’t mix. BTW I stopped both alcohol and seminars quite some time ago. At 72, I’m too old to put up with either.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t there to witness it first hand, but others have told me a very different version of the Friday night debacle.

I guess we need someone who was actually there to corroborate either way.

Another thing … I was told the atmosphere of Friday night was one of fun partying with plenty of alcohol to fuel the gambling gods, so it wasn’t one of serious, disciplined, focused playing, the kind which I witnessed Ellis exercise on Saturday and Sunday nights. So, I’m sure the attitude of playing was an important factor in the Friday night bloodbath.

Correct, everything you say is correct. But I left shortly after the second table opened. Bac tables are not a place to party and NOR requires table selection. I went with several others back to our motel. I had a hard day coming up early the next morning. I played the shoe they lost the next day at the seminar. One of the players gave it to me play by play. It turned out to be a simple shoe to beat with straight book NOR. You photographed it.

Not being there Friday night, I did not witness what actually happened, only hearing about it second-hand from a few of the other players who were there. If Ellis says it happened a certain way, who am I to argue? Perhaps I misinterpreted what the others were saying.

But one objective, verifiable piece of evidence: I reviewed my recordings of the Saturday morning seminar when for the first hour, Ellis discussed the difficulty of the games they encountered Friday night. The overall tone of the discussion was one of defeat and trying to learn from the mistakes made.

At one point in the recording, Ellis did explicitly mention the numbers “5 to 6” shoes on Friday night.

His exact words (9:10 – 9:51):

… And all of our NOR systems, our three NOR systems, they’re all biased systems. But you can see these shoes here, this starts off streaky, goes to pure chop, and back to streak. That makes for tough shoes to play. And, uh, they were pretty much all, I don’t know how many we played altogether last night, about 5 or 6? They were pretty much all that way. And that’s, that’s I think a good time to play AD …

Also, later (56:50 – 57:30):

… So that sorta shows you what, in a nut shell, what the problem was last night. Uh, every, everything was too streaky for (S)40, and, uh, it was, we did, we did win with, uh, F in a couple of shoes. Didn’t win a lot. But F was probably the best of the three (NOR systems) for last night, F was probably the best, but I don’t think you could win with F overall, virtually no matter what you did. You wouldn’t’ve lost a lot, but you wouldn’t’ve won either …

So, in the recording, Ellis apparently states he played 5-6 shoes on Friday night for a net loss. More to the point, he acknowledges that NOR is not bullet-proof, and only in hindsight can one truly know what would’a, could’a, should’a won.

Giving Ellis the benefit of the doubt, it’s entirely possible that he was talking about the group’s experience as a whole from examining the scorecards the next morning, where in actuality, he himself did not suffer in the bloodbath. It sounds like that is what Ellis is saying now. But it didn’t come across that way to me at the time, nor from what I heard from others who where there. I suppose we would need someone who was actually there to verify what actually happened.

I was also told that another seminar member, Kevin, who plays his own systems based on principles diametrically opposed to what Ellis teaches, was the only one to win Friday night, and from the reports, he won quite a lot. On Saturday afternoon, Ellis graciously yielded the podium to Kevin to allow him to share with the group how he plays.

Regardless, it’s always prudent to evaluate claims in their proper context, and always require objective verification. Sadly, consciously or unconsciously, it is human nature to forget failures and remember successes.

Getting back to the subject of this thread, mathematical oddities, I have one you guys might enjoy. It could be everybody knows this already from the relatively recent movie, 21. If so, please excuse.

I got this from Marlyn of Ask Marlyn fame in 1990, you know, the woman with the 200 IQ. She got it from Monty Hall or whatever that game show was back in the ’70s. The movie 21 got it from me. I performed this demonstation at some 200 BJ seminars because of its direct relevance to pro level Blackjack. It goes like this:

I put 3 inverted cups on the podium. One had a $100 bill under it. I asked the audience for a volunteer. I always picked a woman. So I tell her she can have the bill if she chooses the right cup 1,2 or 3. So lets say she picks #1. I turn over #2 and show her its empty and ask if she wants to change her mind.

My question to you is first should she change her mind?

My second question is what is the reason for your answer.

Now guys, please, if you already know this try to refrain from answering so others can have some fun with this.

Later I’ll tell you exactly how this relates to professional BJ.

Thanks, Ellis – Yes, I already know this one. 😉

It’s a classic! Yes, Monty Hall in Let’s Make a Deal.

Right, “Let’s Make a Deal”. Couldn’t conjure that up in my aging brain. Anyone care to take a shot at it?

BTW. here’s a post that appeared on my own forum this morning that may shed a little light on that fatefull Friday night before the seminar started.

“Rich333 NOR Baccarat Player

Back in the saddle..harrahs

hello all,

I don’t ever post but thought I would try to add some support to NOR newbies. I have been to several seminars including PA, where I made money right along with Clifton : That first seminar was like strapping an ACME rocket to your butt and going for a ride…lol. Things have come a long way. Anyhow, I have been playing NOR when i can, and I have no complaints in my travels. Here is recent card from harrahs in joliet…only 1 bacc table.

P31421111315222112313112111121112

Now I started in F3 at play 6, which allowed me to catch the 3 and 5 run, I got caught in the 3-1-3 later on and switched to S40 at play 47 when the OR went+6. Im not saying I played it exactly right… S40 throughout may have been better. Maybe I should have stopped at +10 in F…..but it just goes to show you how forgiving and adaptable NOR can be… I still made my goal after switching, that’s why its an approach. You dont have to be a perfect player…I don’t know that the term of ” perfect play” should even exist in NOR.”

Other than sitting in for Keith for several hands so he could go to the john, wherein I could make no further headway, my quick +10 at the newly opened table was the only shoe I played that night. There were simply no seats by the time I got there. Rich333 and a couple other guys left with me after also hitting +10. Most had not yet arrived when we left. We were oblivious to the “bloodbath” until Sat morning, But the rest kept playing after hitting plus ten ($25 table). That is a NOR no no when betting a 123 and those who stayed in lost by breaking every NOR cash Mgt. rule. Then, as others showed up, they made the mistake of playing another shoe at that same losing table – another NOR no no. That is the shoe posted on this forum on the white board which the guys dictated to me play by play. – which turned out to be a simple NOR shoe where they should have hit +19 as I recall.

So I ended the trip with 7 winning shoes in a row. But Dave wasn’t there for the first one at +10.

Rich333

NOR Baccarat Player

Join Date: Aug 2007Posts: 6Rep Power:0

back in the saddle..harrahs

Upcoming Events

EventSpot by Constant ContactEventSpot by Constant Contact

hello all,

I don’t ever post but thought I would try to add some support to NOR newbies. I have been to several seminars including PA, where I made money right along with Clifton 🙂 That first seminar was like strapping an ACME rocket to your butt and going for a ride…lol. Things have come a long way. Anyhow, I have been playing NOR when i can, and I have no complaints in my travels. Here is recent card from harrahs in joliet…only 1 bacc table.

P31421111315222112313112111121112

Now I started in F3 at play 6, which allowed me to catch the 3 and 5 run, I got caught in the 3-1-3 later on and switched to S40 at play 47 when the OR went+6. Im not saying I played it exactly right… S40 throughout may have been better. Maybe I should have stopped at +10 in F…..but it just goes to show you how forgiving and adaptable NOR can be… I still made my goal after switching, that’s why its an approach. You dont have to be a perfect player…I don’t know that the term of ” perfect play” should even exist in NOR.

BTW, speaking of justtryingtomakeit, who was very short lived on our forum, I’m not surprised to hear Dave’s description of him. It was obvious to me that he was up to no good.

I strongly advise my students to NEVER play anyone else’s money. I don’t care how good you play, you simply don’t play the same when playing someone else’s money. I’ve never known anyone to be successful at it.

Now I’m not talking about a bunch of friends putting up a buy in. I do this all the time at seminars. I never get to play my own money. I don’t know if Dave was keeping up with what was going on but when I played, Keith put up some money, his girlfriend put up some separate money, Ron D and his girlfriend put up money and a couple other guys. They all more than doubled their money and I ended up with nothing.

What I AM talking about is someone putting up say $10.000 or more for you to play. Everyone I’ve ever seen try this failed miserably even though they did very well when playing their own money.

I get requests to do this all the time but I always turn them down. Not only is it dangerous but think about it – there is nothing in it for me. Why would I play someone else’s money for half the profits when I can play my own money for ALL the profits? There is simply no point in it, let alone the risks. A word to the wise.

For instance, someone comes to you and says, “I’m a great player but I have no money…..” Give me a break. Does that make any sense at all??? How can anybody be dumb enough to fall for such a scam. Ah, but they do.

Looking over Rich’s play in the above shoe it was about as near perfect as you can get. First, he picked the right system and the right Mode and he started on the right play.

Nor tells us to play F in a strong sided shoe and I teach to always start in Mode 3. Ater play 5, P was ahead 4 to 1, a perfect F3 application. As he said, he should have quit at +10 at play 21 with an incredible 45% PA. A single 3 his highest bet. This was likely the best play in the casino all day, maybe all month.

Dave, say what you will about progressions but in this shoe it improved Rich’s score from +6 to +10. Again, I’ve never heard of a winning flat bettor in any casino game.

He should have quit right there. He was lucky to get back to +10.

I only advise going past +10 if you get there in the first 20 plays. He almost did!

You know, looking back on that fateful Fri night, in other words Monday morning quarterbacking, as soon as we saw that they had physically removed our reserved new cards every shoe ten player table from the casino on Thursday night, we should have then and there changed the Sat night play venue from Hollywood to Atlantic City. Casinos don’t remove tables for no reason especially when they have been reserved. Neither do they schedule only one open table on a Fri night. We should have known someting was up.

I teach that when you can’t find good conditions your best option is to not play. Our seasoned players did the right thing. They came with me in the motel van and as soon as they saw only one table, and it already full with our new guys, plus guys standing in the isle, they got right back in the motel van and went back. That was the right thing to do. Not playing is a whole lot better than losing.

Also, I should have stayed out of the casino on Fri night since no play had been scheduled. But I definitely had no business playing once I saw they had removed our table. Fortunately, they eventually opened a new table with new cards. That game went normal for those of us who knew when to quit. We DID change the play venue to A.C. for Sunday play and all went well once we did that.

Regarding Monty hall Problem, I know the answer so I won’t give it away but I will tell you some fun stories about it.
As I’ve alluded to on other posts I’m a trader in financial markets for a large institution. I posed this question to my co- workers and its fair to say that it almost led to blows and countless arguments. Bear in mind I work along side ‘Quants’ who are literally former rocket scientists, mathematicians, physicists etc. On a first pass most gave the wrong answer (including me) but after a bit of consideration probably 70% accepted the correct answer. The next 20% took some convincing but after an actual display of 20 turns using paper cups they accepted the reality. It is the last 10% who are interesting.
At the risk of repeating myself, keep in mind the mathematical background of these people. They have filled up countless whiteboards with ever increasing esoteric calculations (to which I ceased to understand them after about the second whiteboard) and have delved into string theory, Fermats Theorem, alchemy and no doubt will soon touch on the mind of God.
What’s really interesting is that these people KNOW that an actual display will prove them wrong, they just don’t know why!
And whilst I’ve watched it all I’ve actually swung between both sides. I too know the ‘correct’ answer but its so counter intuitive that it only takes a little prodding to put me back in the other camp.
Now if this was a discussion amongst members of the general public I wouldn’t be taking the 10% so seriously, but being who they are it has proved fascinating to watch !

Thanks, Andrew …

That is indeed funny! “… and have delved into string theory, Fermats Theorem, alchemy and no doubt will soon touch on the mind of God.” 🙂

Yeah, it was a few of these geniuses who devised the derivatives which helped get us into this whole economic mess. They’ve made fortunes for their institutions, while the rest of us have to pick up the tab. Talk about having a license to steal!

[…]Whenever he couldn’t or wouldn’t understand something I was trying to explain, he would launch into some meta-physical mumbo jumbo about how all reality was just “Pi in rotation,” that “We are the Pi,” and all our games and results are just “geometry within geometry within geometry.” As well, he would expound pseudo-authoritatively on the history of Laplace vs. Boskovic, algebraic vs. geometric probabilities, and the original Buffon’s Needle Problem. I’m not a historian, but I know my physics and math, and his complete lack of understanding of physics and math does not inspire any confidence in me that he has his historical facts straight either.[…]

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.