PGA Tour: The "PGA" - Best Major, or an Afterthought?: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

1).Strange, isn't it, that the lightly regarded "Fourth Major" invariably has the best field and often the most interesting finish?
The ambition to produce the Top 100 in the owgr has clearly been punctured with Dustin Johnson absent, Tiger Woods a doubt, and others (Crane, Day, DeLaet, Toms) who were sufficiently infirm last week to withdraw from their respective tournaments, but the Top 130 in this week's field won't be matched this year anywhere in the World.

2).You don't need Mark Knopfler to tell you that half the Tour is coming down with Industrial Disease.
No word as to who's got smoker's cough from smoking, brewer's droop from drinking beer, and if Jesus is on hunger strike, dying by degrees, a dozen or two of the field will undoubtedly give up the ghost on the first tees. Not sure about "Rule Brittania, gassy beer, page three"! Have to speak to Poulter about that.

Whatever, we certainly have more than our fair share of casualties, most of whom will play, but whether just going through the motions or not remains to be seen.

3).Another wonderful win from Rory last week - reckon he won it on Saturday with birdies on #17 and #18 rather than on Sunday. Those two threes crept him closer to the lead and deeper inside Sergio's head, and early Sunday birdies clinched the deal.
Just a thought as one reflected upon the summer form of Rory, followed albeit at a distance, of Kaymer, Scott, Rose and Garcia:
Are we entering a brand new post-Tiger era of golfing excellence, or has it always been there, just a level below the Woods of a decade ago? I'm inclined to feel we're seeing some separation with Rory at one level, the next five or six consistently just behind, and some distance to those below the top seven or eight players.

4).As at Tuesday afternoon Valhalla time, all we know is that Woods has not yet been to the course and it's anyone's guess as to whether he'll be teeing it up on Thursday. But he won't be a force just because he's playing, he'll only be a force again, if ever, when he sets his ego aside, gets himself properly fit, and ratchets down his swing and resultant effect on his aging physique. Odds against in my book, but he's surprised before.

5).The PGA will be played, for the third time in 20 years, at Valhalla GC a Jack Nicklaus design outside Louisville, Kentucky. The Par-71 was also the venue for Azinger's Ryder Cup Team victory in 2008.
Several of the Team members from 2008 played well, Mickelson among them to go with Top Ten finishes in the 1996 (T8) and 2000 (T9) PGA Championships. Robert Karlsson was entering the best run of form of his life, Messrs Mahan, Rose and McDowell made promising Ryder Cup debuts, and Poulter excelled in a losing cause.

6).Others in the field with PGA Championship / Ryder Cup form who might be expected to contend (so not you Mark Brooks, nor even Kenny Perry who will doubtless perform well following his Langer-beating effort last week) include:
1996 PGA:
T17: Furyk
T24: Jimenez
T61: Els

2000 PGA:
3rd: Thomas Bjorn
T16: Westwood
T19: Cabrera (Nantz looked at Faldo as if he had two heads when sirnick suggested El Pato as a contender this week)
T34: Els, Garcia (who's on recent record as saying he doesn't like the course, certainly played as if he didn't in the Ryder Cup)
T64: Jimenez
T72: Furyk

2008 Ryder Cup:
0.5 pt: Jimenez, Stricker
1.0 pt: Casey, Garcia, Westwood
1.5 pts: Stenson
2.0 pts: Karlsson, Mickelson (playing mostly with a young hotshot called Kim)
2.5 pts: Furyk, Holmes, McDowell
3.0 pts: Rose
3.5 pts: Mahan
4.0 pts: Poulter

7).European chances:
Got to include McIlroy of course and I like the chances of Bjorn, Karlsson, Rose and Stenson.
Can't see Sergio contending while there's chat about Kaymer having back/neck issues.
Hopefully McDowell will play well but is this course a little too long for him? He'll be off on paternity leave shortly.
Big week for Donald (nah) and Donaldson. And will Lowry bring his links form to the Blue Grass?

8).Americans, also playing to earn a spot on Watson's Ryder Cup Team:
Bradley and Fowler are in great form right now.
Dufner's got his bulging discs and wonder if Valhalla is just too long for Furyk and Zach Johnson (who needs a good result for Ryder Cup ambitions)?
No doubt Kuchar will be there or thereabouts, perhaps Mahan will rediscover his form of 2008, while Snedeker and Holmes are local-ish.
And I wouldn't rule out Mickelson, somewhat (and rightly so) overlooked all year, but he found something last Sunday - can he keep it going?

9)."Internationals":
Great to see Ogilvy pick up his win last week and like him and Scott best of the Aussies, especially given Day's fitness issues.
No South African has won in the US for three years and can't see that changing.
But I love Cabrera's recent form and expect him to make some noise, while Matsuyama has already won on one Nicklaus course this year.

10).It won't be the stiflingly hot August week that you'd expect in Louisville, but there'll be enough humidity to make it feel warm and precipitate random thundershowers.
Hopefully the cream will rise to the top as it has for most big events this year.
The PGA won't have the glamour of The Masters, the history of the US Open or the tradition of The Open Championship, but it will host the best field and will surely provide a deserving winner.
Hope ailing stars get healthy and we enjoy a great Championship.

Diggers wrote:

super_realist wrote:Bookies odds are also a result of previous form, fans favourites, how  much money has been placed etc, whereas having everyone at 159-1 wouldn't make them a penny.
It is entirely feasible that anyone in that field, could win the event.

No it's not, you have to use form. It is not the same as a lottery draw or even remotely close.
You cannot strip variables out of an event to prove a point, that's just nonsense.
You could have a paraplegic blind person whose never played golf before starting, by your logic they have the same chance of winning as Coco. Its bollox.

Diggers, that's a simply retarded analogy. A paraplegic is not a professional golfer, couldn't be in the field and couldn't possibly have the skills and technique to navigate any course to that standard.
It is entirely feasible every player in the field could win it.

s_r is cofusing the fact that every golfer could win the event with the fact that every golfer is equally likely to win the event. When you flip a coint ten times it's entirely feasible to get ten heads (a probability of 1/1024) but it's much more likely that you'll get say four heads and six tails...

Feasibly everyone could win. But thats like saying Usain bolt against 7 gb sprinters its a 1 in 8 that anyone can win. Its a very simplistic formula and nonsensical really. You also cannot compare sport to the lottery. As sport like penalties is not a lottery!

super_realist wrote:

Diggers wrote:

super_realist wrote:Bookies odds are also a result of previous form, fans favourites, how  much money has been placed etc, whereas having everyone at 159-1 wouldn't make them a penny.
It is entirely feasible that anyone in that field, could win the event.

No it's not, you have to use form. It is not the same as a lottery draw or even remotely close.
You cannot strip variables out of an event to prove a point, that's just nonsense.
You could have a paraplegic blind person whose never played golf before starting, by your logic they have the same chance of winning as Coco. Its bollox.

Diggers, that's a simply retarded analogy. A paraplegic is not a professional golfer, couldn't be in the field and couldn't possibly have the skills and technique to navigate any course to that standard.
It is entirely feasible every player in the field could win it.

but not equally likely!!!!

Super has shown many times to be ignorant about probability.


A less than glowing review for the course from chubby

"chubby chandler ‏@chubby6665
Good day at Valhalla ...course is good but not as good as most major courses ... and with weather forecast they won't be able to firm it up"

Sounding Rory friendly if things stay soft. Certainly increases his probability of winning if things stay soft'ish.

I don't like talking about probability in sport anyway. While chance certainly plays a part (I personally can't stand the statement "you make your own luck", though how you capitalise on said luck is of course crucial), more often that not the player who plays the best will win any given competition/match.

super_realist wrote:

Diggers wrote:

super_realist wrote:Bookies odds are also a result of previous form, fans favourites, how  much money has been placed etc, whereas having everyone at 159-1 wouldn't make them a penny.
It is entirely feasible that anyone in that field, could win the event.

No it's not, you have to use form. It is not the same as a lottery draw or even remotely close.
You cannot strip variables out of an event to prove a point, that's just nonsense.
You could have a paraplegic blind person whose never played golf before starting, by your logic they have the same chance of winning as Coco. Its bollox.

Diggers, that's a simply retarded analogy. A paraplegic is not a professional golfer, couldn't be in the field and couldn't possibly have the skills and technique to navigate any course to that standard.
It is entirely feasible every player in the field could win it.

Ah do now you want to use a variable? This is without doubt the dumbest argument you've tried to justify Super, you are talking utter crap.
It's as easy to prove Coco is a better golfer than the world 150 as it is to prove he is better that a paraplegic.
Ability is relevant and is only one of many relevant variables.

Yes Diggers, it's true that he is. I'm merely saying that it is entirely possible that an unfancied player could win this despite someone like Pubehead being a more talented and higher ranked player. We see it in golf all the time, it's what makes it such a hard sport to predict.

Will it happen? Who knows. No one is denying Pubehead is the player of the moment.

No, the reality is that the next ball after five whites is more likely to be a ball of another colour. 1 in 9 chance of a white versus 8 in 9 chance of another colour.

You are right, but for the wrong reason. In the LESS likely event of another white coming out, it is MORE likely to be number 6, because there are only 5 whites left in the bag versus 10 numbers for balls of all the other colours.

Chance of white ball is 5 in 45, then chance of 6 is 1 in 5 = 1 in 45.
Chance of yellow is 10 in 45, then chance of 49 is one in 10 = 1 in 45.

No sequence, colour arrangement has any more likelihood than any other. There are 14 million combinations, each with an equal chance of being drawn.

Golf - among players of about the same standard, all playing to the best of their ability is a bit of a lottery. On the odd occasion you get three or four players all playing well, all about the same score going into the last nine holes, it's about who gets the break and who doesn't. A ball headed for the green might kick off into a bunker, and another ball headed for the bunker might kick onto the green.

Jean van Velde should have won the Open at Carnoustie (easily) but he got a terrible bounce off the grandstand on the 72nd. If his ball hadn't bounced like it did, he would surely have won.

If it was me, I'd have hit three six irons and hoped to take less than four putts, but that's the state of my game these days.

George1507 wrote:No, the reality is that the next ball after five whites is more likely to be a ball of another colour. 1 in 9 chance of a white versus 8 in 9 chance of another colour.

You are right, but for the wrong reason. In the LESS likely event of another white coming out, it is MORE likely to be number 6, because there are only 5 whites left in the bag versus 10 numbers for balls of all the other colours.

Chance of white ball is 5 in 45, then chance of 6 is 1 in 5 = 1 in 45.
Chance of yellow is 10 in 45, then chance of 49 is one in 10 = 1 in 45.

yep, though the easier computation is simply to state: 45 balls, each equally likely, thus 1/45 chance for each one. Conditioning by the colour of the ball you're picking seems unnecessarily complicated to me .

super_realist wrote:No sequence, colour arrangement has any more likelihood than any other. There are 14 million combinations, each with an equal chance of being drawn.

sorry to be a pedantic d!ck, but combinations aren't the same as sequences (or arrangements). A sequence is, say 2-15-3-47-18-33 drawn in that order. Lottery is of course about combinations, which is the set {2-3-15-18-33-47} not dependant on the order in which the balls are plucked. In Lotto, the players plays combinations (each combination has six sequences of picks which lead to it). Obviously, all sequences and combinations are indeed equally likely (if you suppose the picks to be uniform).

Colours are a different matter: there is more chance of drawing one ball of each colour than six balls of the same colour...

Yes, maybe, but if you are sitting there watching the lottery on TV, needing a 6 to match the first five numbers, you'd better be prepared for the colour of the ball to be something other than white. 90% chance it won't be white...

If I said there's a 90% chance that an Irish golfer won't win the PGA Championship, you might reconsider your betting.

I meant combinations, obviously the order in which they come out doesn't matter.

The problem comes when we try to imbue significance to the action of drawing a ball, with the value on it.

Drawing 1,2,3,4,5,6 in that order is just as likely as drawing any other set of numbers.

Id like to win the lottery.

George - I'm thinking of opening a casino - would you like to be my best customer?   

Apparently, there are about 1000 people who pick the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 in the lottery every week. I guess they might be a tad upset if they win and realise that they wont be trousering £5m but £5,000.

Diggers wrote:Id like to win the lottery.

http://www.math.uci.edu/~mfinkels/WORK.PDF

here you go: gives you a "favourable strategy for betting on the lottery". The gist of it is to only go for it when the jackpot hits 18 million (would be 14 million in our case) and then bet on the numbers which no one else goes for. The downfall is that it will take something over 2 million years (on average) for you actually to win anything...

Davie wrote:George - I'm thinking of opening a casino - would you like to be my best customer?   

Davie, thanks for the kind offer but I'll pass that up. Having been to Las Vegas a few times (on biz) and seen just how quickly they clear the table of your losing chips I'm reluctant to try again. They were rounded up and poured down the hole before I could say 'No, I meant red...'

super_realist wrote:I meant combinations, obviously the order in which they come out doesn't matter.

The problem comes when we try to imbue significance to the action of drawing a ball, with the value on it.

Drawing 1,2,3,4,5,6 in that order is just as likely as drawing any other set of numbers.

this is correct. There is a 1 in 80 million or so chance of drawing 1-2-3-4-5-6 in that order (the same for any other sequence...)

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

super_realist wrote:I meant combinations, obviously the order in which they come out doesn't matter.

The problem comes when we try to imbue significance to the action of drawing a ball, with the value on it.

Drawing 1,2,3,4,5,6 in that order is just as likely as drawing any other set of numbers.

this is correct. There is a 1 in 80 million or so chance of drawing 1-2-3-4-5-6 in that order (the same for any other sequence...)

It's a LOT more than that - something like 1 in 10 billion

The same for any combination of numbers.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Diggers wrote:Id like to win the lottery.

http://www.math.uci.edu/~mfinkels/WORK.PDF

here you go: gives you a "favourable strategy for betting on the lottery". The gist of it is to only go for it when the jackpot hits 18 million (would be 14 million in our case) and then bet on the numbers which no one else goes for. The downfall is that it will take something over 2 million years (on average) for you actually to win anything...

It is true, in the UK lottery, that people who win and have selected three or more numbers greater than 31 win more (as a percentage of the jackpot) than people who win having selected smaller numbers. In other words, if you want to win big, then bet on numbers greater than 31 - you are less likely to have to share your winnings.

Davie wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

super_realist wrote:I meant combinations, obviously the order in which they come out doesn't matter.

The problem comes when we try to imbue significance to the action of drawing a ball, with the value on it.

Drawing 1,2,3,4,5,6 in that order is just as likely as drawing any other set of numbers.

this is correct. There is a 1 in 80 million or so chance of drawing 1-2-3-4-5-6 in that order (the same for any other sequence...)

It's a LOT more than that  - something like 1 in 10 billion

you're right. I (stupidly) multiplied the 14 million for the combinations by 6 instead of by 6!=720, so it's much closer to 10 billion...

By Woods leaving his decision to play so late, do i take it that the next alternate will lose out if Woods doesn't make it?

I see no reason an alternate couldn't tee it up on standby. I don't think even someone as big a plonker as 9C would leave it until his playing partners were on the tee to withdraw.
Surely at least a couple of hours before.

Eyetoldyouso wrote:Apparently, there are about 1000 people who pick the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 in the lottery every week. I guess they might be a tad upset if they win and realise that they wont be trousering £5m but £5,000.

  

George1507 wrote:

Davie wrote:George - I'm thinking of opening a casino - would you like to be my best customer?   

Davie, thanks for the kind offer but I'll pass that up. Having been to Las Vegas a few times (on biz) and seen just how quickly they clear the table of your losing chips I'm reluctant to try again. They were rounded up and poured down the hole before I could say 'No, I meant red...'

Play red/black. Double your bet every time until you win. Then walk home richer.

Never got casinos or gambling really, not my bag. Loved Vegas though with all the crazy themed casinos, utterly bonkers place to go for a few days. The Bellagio fountain light show might be naff but its great fun.

If I was the next alternate I think I'd hang around the first tee on the assumption I'd be in. In fact, I think I'd warm up next to Mickelson and shake hands with him on the basis we'd be partnered.

This week I think you have to take the PGA Pro's out of the calculations!

pedro wrote:

George1507 wrote:

Davie wrote:George - I'm thinking of opening a casino - would you like to be my best customer?   

Davie, thanks for the kind offer but I'll pass that up. Having been to Las Vegas a few times (on biz) and seen just how quickly they clear the table of your losing chips I'm reluctant to try again. They were rounded up and poured down the hole before I could say 'No, I meant red...'

Play red/black. Double your bet every time until you win. Then walk home richer.

Let me see if I can figure out the flaw in that system...

Would have thought that Woods being allowed to make his final decision ten minutes before his tee-time is disrespectful to his playing partners, the alternates and the paying public (although there's seldom much evidence that they are ever considered in such matters).

But everyone would warm up, so presumably that includes ETW and that would suggest that he at least plans to fly up to Louisville. 'Course, he's a bit of a diva so perhaps he could pull a Serena Williams and shank/dub the ball for a few holes just so that his adoring public can ooh and aah.

Best case scenario he plays and plays well - anything else is likely to be theatrical whether comedy or farce. Definitely not tragedy though.

George1507 wrote:

pedro wrote:

George1507 wrote:

Davie wrote:George - I'm thinking of opening a casino - would you like to be my best customer?   

Davie, thanks for the kind offer but I'll pass that up. Having been to Las Vegas a few times (on biz) and seen just how quickly they clear the table of your losing chips I'm reluctant to try again. They were rounded up and poured down the hole before I could say 'No, I meant red...'

Play red/black. Double your bet every time until you win. Then walk home richer.

Let me see if I can figure out the flaw in that system...

Here's the flaws

First you might run out of money before you win and secondly - you win $1

$1 on red - lose, $2 on red - lose, $4 on red - lose................$1,024 on red - lose. Your next bet is $2,048 and you have already put in $2,047. So you win - the grand total of $1.

To be perfectly honest I don't care if any of the alternates play. If they want to get in that badly they should work harder and earn a spot automatically.
Id rather see Woods so Id rather he's given every chance to play, that said 10 minutes seems a bit crazy, you'd think he'd know as soon as he wakes up and hits a few balls.

Like I said, I doubt even 9C is stupid enough or selfish enough to leave it to the last 10 minutes.

No doubt he'll have a gerrymandered, pre scripted, carefully stage managed press release come out around about prime news time this evening, no doubt espousing short term suffering and his regret in having to withdraw in order to prolong his career.

Eyetoldyouso wrote:

George1507 wrote:

pedro wrote:

George1507 wrote:

Davie wrote:George - I'm thinking of opening a casino - would you like to be my best customer?   

Davie, thanks for the kind offer but I'll pass that up. Having been to Las Vegas a few times (on biz) and seen just how quickly they clear the table of your losing chips I'm reluctant to try again. They were rounded up and poured down the hole before I could say 'No, I meant red...'

Play red/black. Double your bet every time until you win. Then walk home richer.

Let me see if I can figure out the flaw in that system...

Here's the flaws

First you might run out of money before you win and secondly - you win $1

$1 on red - lose, $2 on red - lose, $4 on red - lose................$1,024 on red - lose. Your next bet is $2,048 and you have already put in $2,047. So you win - the grand total of $1.

The bigger flaw is the presence of one or more 00 slots on the wheel. They always skew the odds in the favour of the house

The forecast for the Louisville area this week is getting progressively worse. At least a 40% chance of thunderstorms each day Thursday thru Tuesday:
Thursday: 50% afternoon thunderstorms
Friday: "Heavy thunderstorms" 90%
Saturday & Sunday: 40% chance, same on Monday & Tuesday.
Temps in the low to mid 80's every day.

So: Likelihood that the course will play long and soft, not what the better shot-makers would hope for, but should suit Rory down to the ground. Not the 2014-model Tiger though.
(Not clear what the "European Forecast" models, which tend to be much more accurate, are suggesting.)

Davie wrote:

Eyetoldyouso wrote:

George1507 wrote:

pedro wrote:

George1507 wrote:

Davie wrote:George - I'm thinking of opening a casino - would you like to be my best customer?   

Davie, thanks for the kind offer but I'll pass that up. Having been to Las Vegas a few times (on biz) and seen just how quickly they clear the table of your losing chips I'm reluctant to try again. They were rounded up and poured down the hole before I could say 'No, I meant red...'

Play red/black. Double your bet every time until you win. Then walk home richer.

Let me see if I can figure out the flaw in that system...

Here's the flaws

First you might run out of money before you win and secondly - you win $1

$1 on red - lose, $2 on red - lose, $4 on red - lose................$1,024 on red - lose. Your next bet is $2,048 and you have already put in $2,047. So you win - the grand total of $1.

The bigger flaw is the presence of one or more 00 slots on the wheel. They always skew the odds in the favour of the house

Not really, 0 or 00 don't matter, your pay-out on red/black is 2:1. This is a "bullet proof" system. You will always walk home with the double of your initial bet. Only "flaw" is that usually there's a limit to how much you can bet and you'd have to bring a lot of cash to be sure to win. Also Casinos often don't allow "systematic betting" or whatever they call it, but if you keep a low profile I'm sure you can get away with it.

pedro wrote:
Not really, 0 or 00 don't matter, your pay-out on red/black is 2:1. This is a "bullet proof" system. You will always walk home with the double of your initial bet. Only "flaw" is that usually there's a limit to how much you can bet and you'd have to bring a lot of cash to be sure to win. Also Casinos often don't allow "systematic betting" or whatever they call it, but if you keep a low profile I'm sure you can get away with it.

Not true - the payout is still 2/1 but the odds are fractionally less than 2/1 due to the inclusion of 0 and 00

super_realist wrote:

George1507 wrote:

super_realist wrote:

George1507 wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Davie wrote:Mac - if you were watching the national lottery draw and the first 5 numbers to come out were 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 ... would there be more or less chance of the final number being 6 or 49?

Mac doesn't approve of the lottery, it's a tax on the working class.

There would be more chance of it being 49 than 6. The first 10 balls are white (or whatever colour) and the next ten are blue and so on. So after you have picked five balls, the chances are that the next ball you pick is not white (5 whites left against 45 balls of other colours). Since there are 9 or 10 balls in yellow (or whatever colour the highest number balls are) you would be more likely to pick 49 than 6.

Only once in the UK lottery have all the balls picked been the same colour.

That's untrue George, the number/colour of the ball is completely irrelevant. The next ball to be drawn is an individual event. It is not influenced by what has gone before or what comes after.

We imbue the balls with significance, but that means nothing to the machine making the draw. There are something like 14 million different combinations of draw, each has precisely the same chance of been drawn out as any other. The balls have no knowledge of what colour they are or what number they have.

The problem you are making is that you are imbuing the balls colour and numbers with significance, that's irrelevant to the machine process. As long as the balls are the same size, shape and material then whatever is painted on them doesn't matter.

So, if you had a bag with 5 white balls, 10 green, 10 red, 10 green, 10 yellow and 10 blue, do you think there's as much chance of drawing a white ball as a ball of any other colour?

Absolutely, because the issue is that it's a ball, not what's on it. You are trying to imbue significance to a completely random event. The numbers are irrelevant to what will happen. ALl the machine does is select a ball with individual actions. The machine will draw a ball, that's it. The numbers mean nothing.

If I toss 500 heads in a row, it doesn't mean that the chance of a tails coming up is increased.

actually SR the chance of you tossing a tail decreases as it is >0% chance that your coin is biased.

Davie wrote:

pedro wrote:
Not really, 0 or 00 don't matter, your pay-out on red/black is 2:1. This is a "bullet proof" system. You will always walk home with the double of your initial bet. Only "flaw" is that usually there's a limit to how much you can bet and you'd have to bring a lot of cash to be sure to win. Also Casinos often don't allow "systematic betting" or whatever they call it, but if you keep a low profile I'm sure you can get away with it.

Not true - the payout is still 2/1 but the odds are fractionally less than 2/1 due to the inclusion of 0 and 00

Doesn't matter. You just continue playing until you win. Eventually you will. If you just double your bet everytime you are sure to walk home with twice your initial bet.

http://cainjb94.sportsblog.com/post/447483/groups_to_watch_at_the.html

Groups to watch

hend085 wrote:

super_realist wrote:

George1507 wrote:

super_realist wrote:

George1507 wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Davie wrote:Mac - if you were watching the national lottery draw and the first 5 numbers to come out were 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 ... would there be more or less chance of the final number being 6 or 49?

Mac doesn't approve of the lottery, it's a tax on the working class.

There would be more chance of it being 49 than 6. The first 10 balls are white (or whatever colour) and the next ten are blue and so on. So after you have picked five balls, the chances are that the next ball you pick is not white (5 whites left against 45 balls of other colours). Since there are 9 or 10 balls in yellow (or whatever colour the highest number balls are) you would be more likely to pick 49 than 6.

Only once in the UK lottery have all the balls picked been the same colour.

That's untrue George, the number/colour of the ball is completely irrelevant. The next ball to be drawn is an individual event. It is not influenced by what has gone before or what comes after.

We imbue the balls with significance, but that means nothing to the machine making the draw. There are something like 14 million different combinations of draw, each has precisely the same chance of been drawn out as any other. The balls have no knowledge of what colour they are or what number they have.

The problem you are making is that you are imbuing the balls colour and numbers with significance, that's irrelevant to the machine process. As long as the balls are the same size, shape and material then whatever is painted on them doesn't matter.

So, if you had a bag with 5 white balls, 10 green, 10 red, 10 green, 10 yellow and 10 blue, do you think there's as much chance of drawing a white ball as a ball of any other colour?

Absolutely, because the issue is that it's a ball, not what's on it. You are trying to imbue significance to a completely random event. The numbers are irrelevant to what will happen. ALl the machine does is select a ball with individual actions. The machine will draw a ball, that's it. The numbers mean nothing.

If I toss 500 heads in a row, it doesn't mean that the chance of a tails coming up is increased.

actually SR the chance of you tossing a tail decreases as it is >0% chance that your coin is biased.

You can't say that it's due to the coin being biased that you've tossed 500 consecutive heads (or that tails are decreasing probability). Obviously you'd have to have it analysed to have this confirmed, and even then something on the scale of a coin, as opposed to say a Weeble would be so negligent that you couldn't possibly notice over 500 reps.
You can perhaps attribute it to that, but in reality, each coin toss is a separate action, it is independent of the prior or subsequent outcomes, and each face of the coin will only differ by microns, nothing which would influence the result of the toss to a significant degree.

pedro wrote:

Davie wrote:

pedro wrote:
Not really, 0 or 00 don't matter, your pay-out on red/black is 2:1. This is a "bullet proof" system. You will always walk home with the double of your initial bet. Only "flaw" is that usually there's a limit to how much you can bet and you'd have to bring a lot of cash to be sure to win. Also Casinos often don't allow "systematic betting" or whatever they call it, but if you keep a low profile I'm sure you can get away with it.

Not true - the payout is still 2/1 but the odds are fractionally less than 2/1 due to the inclusion of 0 and 00

Doesn't matter. You just continue playing until you win. Eventually you will. If you just double your bet everytime you are sure to walk home with twice your initial bet.

Payout is 1-1. If you double your bet each time the max you will ever win is $1.

liverbnz wrote:

pedro wrote:

Davie wrote:

pedro wrote:
Not really, 0 or 00 don't matter, your pay-out on red/black is 2:1. This is a "bullet proof" system. You will always walk home with the double of your initial bet. Only "flaw" is that usually there's a limit to how much you can bet and you'd have to bring a lot of cash to be sure to win. Also Casinos often don't allow "systematic betting" or whatever they call it, but if you keep a low profile I'm sure you can get away with it.

Not true - the payout is still 2/1 but the odds are fractionally less than 2/1 due to the inclusion of 0 and 00

Doesn't matter. You just continue playing until you win. Eventually you will. If you just double your bet everytime you are sure to walk home with twice your initial bet.

Payout is 1-1. If you double your bet each time the max you will ever win is $1.

Only if your initial bet is $1. If your intial bet is $100, you will win $100. You decide how much you want to win, just make sure to double your bet every time. Just beware of the betting limit and make sure to bring a lot of cash.

Oh right, getcha. Must remember me $wag bags whenever I'm there.   

liverbnz wrote:Oh right, getcha. Must remember me $wag bags whenever I'm there.   

Great! If I knew how to turn $1 into $100 I wouldn't be sitting here. But turning $100 into $200 is not bad either!

2 flaws with that strategy.

1) it is only a "cant lose" strategy if you have infinite capital.

2) Casinos kick you out if you try to do it!