[shubi]

think after 5 years of large hands produced by computer, many hands are now coming FUNNY?

[PassedOut]

shubi, on Nov 2 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

think after 5 years of large hands produced by computer, many hands are now coming FUNNY?

You mean more or less than 13 cards per hand? I haven't seen that.

[pigpenz]

unless they have added some more cards to the deck then anything goes when all 52 cards are dealt

[matmat]

I agree with shubi. the cards are almost always stacked against me. must be the dealer program's fault. I think we should have fred, uday and company deal out the bids by hand and enter them in to the bbo software manually.

[pclayton]

I think its reasonable to ask for a new deck after six or seven years.

Of course, not all of us are playing with a full one.

[babalu1997]

Actually, it would be interedting to compare some of the percentages of trump breaks in hands dealt at bbo.

Many tournaments will have 3-4 hands with extreme 2 suited distributions and people always ask if it is goulash.

After 3 two suiter in a row, people do ask.

So can a wise one run some tests on lets say, 5,000 hands dealt last week?

[Al_U_Card]

Since Bill Gates retired...he has more time to screw with the hands.......old (Windows) habits die hard.....

[Rossoneri]

babalu1997, on Nov 2 2008, 09:05 PM, said:

Actually, it would be interedting to compare some of the percentages of trump breaks in hands dealt at bbo.

Many tournaments will have 3-4 hands with extreme 2 suited distributions and people always ask if it is goulash.

After 3 two suiter in a row, people do ask.

So can a wise one run some tests on lets say, 5,000 hands dealt last week?

You need to set up a hypothesis test, and intuitively speaking, the scenarios that you have described are rather plausible without a goulash.

[effervesce]

shubi, on Nov 2 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

think after 5 years of large hands produced by computer, many hands are now coming FUNNY?

Hand-dealt hands are often more 'boring' due to the way we shuffle. After a hand, they are collected, often with cards of the same suit grouped. Thus, when dealt 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4 the hands are thus actually artificially 'boring' compared to real randomly dealt hands.

The advent of computer dealing seems to deal more 'freak' hands than hand dealing, but in fact is due to the truly random dealing nature of the computer compared to hand-dealing.

[babalu1997]

effervesce, on Nov 2 2008, 11:38 PM, said:

shubi, on Nov 2 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

think after 5 years of large hands produced by computer, many hands are now coming FUNNY?

Hand-dealt hands are often more 'boring' due to the way we shuffle. After a hand, they are collected, often with cards of the same suit grouped. Thus, when dealt 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4 the hands are thus actually artificially 'boring' compared to real randomly dealt hands.

The advent of computer dealing seems to deal more 'freak' hands than hand dealing, but in fact is due to the truly random dealing nature of the computer compared to hand-dealing.

On effervescent's point, I have a question, which perhaps should be asked in another forum.

In the bridge literature, those odds for card combinarions, were they based on the same odds as those in the dealing program.

Also, the bidding of freak hands is specialized, and often ignored. does this mean then that one must be conversant in more techniques, rathe then the same old same old, goren and distribution points?

[hotShot]

The published odds are based on truly randomized deals.

[TimG]

hotShot, on Nov 3 2008, 08:44 AM, said:

The published odds are based on truly randomized deals.

I believe computer generated deals more closely match true random deals than hand dealt deals. Something about imperfect shuffling when done by hand.

[kenberg]

babalu1997, on Nov 2 2008, 04:05 PM, said:

Actually, it would be interedting to compare some of the percentages of trump breaks in hands dealt at bbo.

Many tournaments will have 3-4 hands with extreme 2 suited distributions and people always ask if it is goulash.

After 3 two suiter in a row, people do ask.

So can a wise one run some tests on lets say, 5,000 hands dealt last week?

The question can be used to see the difficulty of carefully checking figures. I suspect that of you checked 100,000 hands and looked at the distribution of the heart suit in every one you would find good agreement with theory (5,000 is too small). However, checking the break of a trump suit is another matter. If trumps break 4-1 or 5-0 it ups the chances that the opponents will be in the auction and so it increases the possibility that their suit, not yours, will become trump.

It's not that hard to work out the a priori odds of distributions under the assumption that the cards are randomly dealt. Nor would it be hard to check up, but quite a few deals are needed. My somewhat dated understanding of computer generated randomness is that it is pretty easy to design programs that produce apparent randomness from actually deterministic processes, but that there can be some subtle problems that are difficult to overcome. But these hard to overcome issues are way to subtle to be of importance in the dealing of computer hands for bridge players.

Here is a sort of example: Take the number pi=3.14159... and continue its decimal expansion forever. You might expect that in the long run a 1 would appear as often (in terms of relative frequency, that is, the number of 1s so far divided by the number of digits so far) as a 2, a sequence 578 would appear as often as 295 and so on. As far as anyone knows, this is true. If you can prove that it is true (after it is formulated more precisely), you can probably get a job on the faculty of just about any math department in the country.

Trying to rig things so that you get truly random occurrence of digits, or cards, or hands, and do it so that you know with certainty that this is so, is tough. But finding things that are random enough that no one can overcome the apparent randomness, that's not so tough.

Experts in this area are encouraged to correct me.

[gwnn]

for example characters from some posts made by certain posters can be utilized as sources of perfect random

[kenberg]

gwnn, on Nov 3 2008, 04:27 PM, said:

for example characters from some posts made by certain posters can be utilized as sources of perfect random

Will you be naming names?

[Cascade]

Ken the list is below Csaba's post ...

... hang on I am on the list now

[shubi]

52 cards 4 ways 13 cards computer can generate totally unique hands 8.5 billions times. some of them are hands like flat hands, and single suiter and multiple suiters, most computer bridge organization elemenets them; even though they admit it; top secret; and then comes THE BOSS vias factor, lot of non event full hands get archived with out seeing the day or night.
now for BBO its unique,
peak hours 13000 and non peak hours 6000 for say members.
avg 9.5 thousands members playing, say 9.5 thousands players 6 hands in 1 hour
so 9,500* 6 * 17 hours * 5 years 8.5 billions is not to far to reach.

[matmat]

shubi, on Nov 3 2008, 09:55 PM, said:

52 cards 4 ways 13 cards computer can generate totally unique hands 8.5 billions times. some of them are hands like flat hands, and single suiter and multiple suiters, most computer bridge organization elemenets them; even though they admit it; top secret; and then comes THE BOSS vias factor, lot of non event full hands get archived with out seeing the day or night.
now for BBO its unique,
peak hours 13000 and non peak hours 6000 for say members.
avg 9.5 thousands members playing, say 9.5 thousands players 6 hands in 1 hour
so 9,500* 6 * 17 hours * 5 years 8.5 billions is not to far to reach.

i think you're off a few orders of magnitude.

you should see if you can find your most recent 100 deals or so in this book:
http://bridge.thomas...com/impossible/

[han]

I've noticed that my finesses are off way more than 50%, maybe there is some truth to what shUbi is saying.

[Al_U_Card]

"Shubi IS truth....all hail Shubi." ... G.W. Bush.