| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 643.1 | Klondike for kash | SQM::HALLYB | Are all the good ones taken? | Fri Jan 09 1987 16:23 | 10 |
| A friend of mine used to go to Reno and play this game. Just a
slight correction on the cash end: the deck actually cost $52
("$1 per card") and you didn't get paid $5 for a lone Ace on the
Ace board, you got 0. ($10 for A-2, $15 for A-2-3, etc.)
In the GAMES notesfile (KP7, etc.), note 414 describes a rather
nice VAXstation solitaire game. Maybe somebody can con Ray out of
the card-playing side of his code.
John
|
| 643.2 | Stick to craps or blackjack | MODEL::YARBROUGH | | Mon Jan 12 1987 09:33 | 5 |
| I doubt that anyone in Vegas has actually worked out the odds, but I
believe they are SUBSTANTIALLY in favor of the house. It may be one of the
worst bets (from the bettor's point of view) in Vegas. I suspect your
expected return on a $50 investment is about $20. This is based on a lot of
spare time spent playing the silly game.
|
| 643.3 | I only use mental money | WKRP::KIER | Mike DTN 432-6286 @CYO | Mon Jan 12 1987 10:42 | 20 |
| Re: .2
I'd come to pretty much the same conclusion, Lynn, based on the same
method... a sort of statistical approximation. I couldn't begin to
think of a method to approach it using probabilities, so I tossed it in
here to see if it would be taken up as a challenge by some of the more
advanced math/probability experts.
Re: .1
Yeah, I knew it was $52 and not $50, but I tend to round it off to make
it easier to quickly mentally tally my winnings or losses. It shouldn't
have a large effect on the odds.
I *didn't*, however, know about the loss of return on bare aces on the
Ace board. That makes a big difference and tilts the already
unfavorable odds further in the House's direction.
Mike
CincinWKRPnati
|
| 643.4 | Skill or Chance? | CHOVAX::YOUNG | Back from the Shadows Again, | Tue Jan 13 1987 03:16 | 9 |
| Its unclear to me, (I have not actually tried to play a game out)
whether there is any 'skill' in this game or not.
In other words, is there always only 1 legal next move?
If not, then it may be that the unfavorable odds mentioned earlier
are merely a result of inferior play? No insult intended. ( 8^) )
-- Barry
|
| 643.5 | what are the accurate rules for solitaire, anyway? | VIDEO::OSMAN | and silos to fill before I feep, and silos to fill before I feep | Tue Jan 13 1987 10:55 | 11 |
| I notice some slight variations in your description than what I'm used
to, and I only mention them in case you didn't intend to be as restrictive
as you were.
According to your rules, if a 5D appeared on a file, and 4D was already
in the Aces pile, you'd be FORCED to play your 5D on the 4D. I recall
from my old rules that I had the option of leaving the 5D on its file,
in order that I can play a black 4 file on top of it to reveal more
cards. Did you intentionally disallow this ?
/Eric
|
| 643.6 | Deterministic | WKRP::KIER | Mike DTN 432-6286 @CYO | Tue Jan 13 1987 12:03 | 13 |
| Re: .4 and .5
Yes, it is a rigid definition. With the exception of mistakes resulting
in forfeiture (such as playing a card out of sequence) the play of the
game is fixed when shuffling is completed. It could conceivably be
represented as a relatively straight forward finite state machine. The
outcome of the game is solely determined by the random position of the
cards in the deck at the time of the deal and not by any skill of the
player. This is where it differs from the various forms of recreational
solitaire where plays such as Eric mentions may affect the output of the
game.
Mike
|
| 643.7 | Save those winning shuffles! | SQM::HALLYB | Are all the good ones taken? | Tue Jan 13 1987 12:33 | 6 |
| It would be interesting to look at the games WON and see if there
is anything special about the arrangements of the cards in the deck
prior to the play. Are there any patterns of cards that lend
themselves to a statistically higher chance of winning?
Great research for a college project.
|
| 643.8 | .7 doesn't make sense. shuffle is WIN or LOSE | VIDEO::OSMAN | and silos to fill before I feep, and silos to fill before I feep | Tue Jan 13 1987 15:58 | 11 |
| Re .7:
I don't understand what you mean "patterns that have more chance of
winning".
If the rules are indeed strict, there's only one choice per move,
and no skill.
Hence a given shuffle either has a 100% or a 0% chance of being a winner.
/Eric
|
| 643.9 | Just a small matter of counting... | WKRP::KIER | Mike DTN 432-6286 @CYO | Tue Jan 13 1987 20:11 | 5 |
| Ah, I think you've pointed the path to the solution, Eric. One merely
has to figure out how many shuffles lead to a payout of $60 or more out
of the total possible shuffles. I can't wait to see your answer. :-)
Mike
|
| 643.10 | | CLT::GILBERT | eager like a child | Wed Jan 14 1987 00:00 | 2 |
| A good approximation of the odds can be gotten by applying the
(ahem) Monte Carlo method.
|
| 643.11 | | SQM::HALLYB | Are all the good ones taken? | Thu Jan 15 1987 14:00 | 20 |
| .8> I don't understand what you mean "patterns that have more chance of
.8> winning".
.8>
.8> If the rules are indeed strict, there's only one choice per move,
.8> and no skill.
Right. You got it. ("Got what?"). Well, after shuffling you have
a sequence of cards. This sequence is then mapped to "WIN" or "LOSE"
depending upon the play of the cards. This is a well-defined mapping
because the rules are strict.
Play a million games, remembering all the sequences that map to "WIN".
Look at the sequences by eye and see if there are any unusual patterns.
For example, maybe all 4 aces are in the middle 13 cards in half of the
winning sequences.
I would be surprised if there was nothing unusual about the patterns
of winning decks. But what those patterns are, I don't know.
John
|