DAL59

Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical questions

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

As he mentioned, the boat leaves the dock, sails up and down the river, and meanwhile, you've lost all your gambling money, hours before the boat returns to dock, and you get bored. 

Oh right, I thought there was something more sinister going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All casino games are "rigged" to a certain extent. There's always a house edge, play enough games and the laws of probability say the house is going to come out on top.

The only measure of control you have is when to leave the game. Cruising riverboats take this away from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

All casino games are "rigged" to a certain extent. There's always a house edge, play enough games and the laws of probability say the house is going to come out on top.

The only measure of control you have is when to leave the game. Cruising riverboats take this away from you.

And the rigging is pretty obvious in classical gambling like the roulette. 
Still you don't have to gamble you can always do other things, at least here in Scandinavia partying is the most popular part. 
Boats at least between countries in Europe don't have to follow national laws and are tax free. Some of the larger are pretty much cruise ships with an car deck. 
An chance the boats use more than standard rigging as they don't have to follow laws. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate the term "rigged" when it comes to casino games.  A casino will not put a game onto it's floor that will not show a profit per the Law of Large numbers.  These games are not 'rigged', a legal casino is required by law to have the payout stats available upon request (at least by the governing body for that casino) for any mechanical game on the floor, and table games odds are well published on their own already.  A game is only rigged when the actual odds are intentionally different than the published odds, either by alteration of the mechanism of a machine or through mechanics on a table game to affect the outcome. 

There are a couple methods usable by the player to obtain a legal edge over a casino.   The most obvious is card counting in blackjack, it can turn a very slight house edge (usually less than 1%) into a significant edge for the player.  And it's not illegal, it's just that casinos don't like it (obviously), and if they figure out you're doing it, they can ask you to not come back into their establishment.   Of course, if you are using a mechanical device to count cards, that is illegal. 

Another edge players can get is in roulette.  With long, tedious, and very careful study of the history of a particular wheel, you can discern if it has any biases.  If you find a wheel that has a bias, then you can alter your bets to reflect that bias, and potentionally gain an advantage.  It is not a practical solution, as it requires tens of thousands of spins to generate a decent history, enough to show a discernible bias (think detecting the Higgs), and again, you'll have to record the data by hand, and a casino will probably kick you out for sitting there for a months or years writing down the results in a notebook, and then change the wheel out, ruining all your work.    It is also possible to calculate the probable outcome of a spin, if you know the starting conditions of the wheel (see the previously linked reference).  But again, it's not very practical without mechanical/electronic tools to crunch the numbers fast enough to alter your bet.    Of course, having the wheel on a said river boat or cruise boat, the random action of the water would probably have enough effect to completely negate any advantage you could obtain. 

There are only a few casino 'games' where you can legitimately regularly have an edge.  These would be Sports Betting, Horse Betting (other forms of track betting too) and 'zero sum' games against fellow players.   In both the Sports book and Horse racing, the odds are set by humans, and those humans (with or without the help of computers) have to study the various teams/entrants, and compute all the data to present odds to offer to the player.   A player has to do the same research, and come up with their own conclusions.  If the player thinks an odds line is far enough away from where it should be, they can make a bet to maximize their return.  That's one of the reasons why you will see an odds line change after a sports book has starting taking bets, if they are made aware that they might be wrong, they can change the odds they are offering to reflect this. 

The other scenario is zero sum games, like poker, as they are played against fellow players, and not the house.  While the house will take a % of each hand usually (or hourly, or whatever), a skilled player can earn enough off the other players to earn back the house rake they have paid out, and have a decent return on their time. 

 

Hopefully this post hasn't violated any forum rules, as I am not promoting gambling here, just pointing out the fact that a studious, mathematically minded player can easily see the vast majority of gambling games are losers for the players, but there are certain times it can be profitable. 

Edited by Gargamel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As anyway either a riverboat will pump out all money from the user's pockets,
or the user will go ashore as the new riverboat owner,
why at all make him waste time boating?

Let him bet all his money right at the cash register and with probability 0.001% return them back with the casino papers, otherwise - just not return.
This will save a lot of time.
Also the riverboat is no more required.

P.S.
To neutralize roulette biases they should use a radioactivity-based random numbers generator.
Let it be Atomic Casino.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Let him bet all his money right at the cash register and with probability 0.001% return them back with the casino papers, otherwise - just not return.

That's a sucker bet for the casino.   They're eventually 'guaranteed' to lose everything, with enough players coming through the door.   A properly bankrolled syndicate of players, where a banker provides each player with let's say $100 as their total net worth, let's these players go place their one single bet.  If the players lose, the banker then refills the players' bank accounts and they try again.  Eventually, with only a 99.9999% house edge, the house will  lose everything.  And if they're not allowed to return, nobody would play, and the house still loses. 

There's a reason most casinos put limits on the amount a player is allowed to bet at any one time.  Too much, and one lucky roll of the dice, the house loses big.

I understand your point @kerbiloid, that the vast majority of gambling is nothing more than voluntary taxation, but there do exist circumstances where a player can walk away from a casino with a regular profit.  I paid for my house down payment and a few trips to the Caribbean with the winnings I made playing poker as a part time job for many years.   Since the waters have dried up with increased regulation and the poker craze fading out, I no longer play regularly, as I am no longer the big fish at the tables.   

 

25 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

To neutralize roulette biases they should use a radioactivity-based random numbers generator.
Let it be Atomic Casino.

Hehehehehehe.... I wouldn't want to be the croupier for that table....    But that said, some online casinos do claim to use natural events (static received from untuned antennas for example) as seeds for their RNG's. 

Edited by Gargamel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

That's a sucker bet for the casino.   They're eventually 'guaranteed' to lose everything, with enough players coming through the door. 

Depends on who are "they".
The current owner - yes.
The personnel - they will just change the owner.
So, the casino and its people will gain their salary in any case, just the owner will be permanently being changed.

This makes things even simpler: they don't need even to fill papers every time.
They just create a post "casino owner". This person gets his dividends and from time to time gets replaced by another person.

P.S.
Also as there will be many owners, they will get in average more or less the same total sum while being the "owner".
They can pay it at once, like a super-jackpot. Then casino lives its own life, "owner" is just a honorific.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly enough, we have taken this question back on topic, an absurdly hypothetical scenario, where there will be serious concrete math to answer it. 

But again, a consortium of well backed players will eventually win out.  Any losses they incur before winning will be held by the house, and so when they finally win, they will recover all their previous losses, and now any dividends they accrue from the rest of the casino will add to their winnings.    They then eventually transfer ownership to the next winner.  But that's assuming there is some onus for them to stay in business after winning outright.  They'd be farther ahead to immediately liquidate the casino after winning, to not risk losing in the future, as there is no winning solution for the house. 

But since there is no winning solution for the house, then the act of winning the bet (as a player) actually becomes a loss, so the player will lose no matter what they do, so their best option is not to play.

 

(Somebody post up a WarGames meme please :D)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can guarantee a profit on roulette just by doubling your bet each time you lose.

But you need an enormous pot of seed money to get anywhere though... ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

You can guarantee a profit on roulette just by doubling your bet each time you lose.

But you need an enormous pot of seed money to get anywhere though... ;)

 

That's a loser strategy. You end up risking a very tiny win versus the loss of your entire starting stake. The only way it is guaranteed not to lose is if your starting stake is infinite and also if the casino accepts infinitely sized bets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gargamel said:

There are only a few casino 'games' where you can legitimately regularly have an edge.  These would be Sports Betting, Horse Betting (other forms of track betting too) and 'zero sum' games against fellow players.   In both the Sports book and Horse racing, the odds are set by humans, and those humans (with or without the help of computers) have to study the various teams/entrants, and compute all the data to present odds to offer to the player.   A player has to do the same research, and come up with their own conclusions.  If the player thinks an odds line is far enough away from where it should be, they can make a bet to maximize their return.  That's one of the reasons why you will see an odds line change after a sports book has starting taking bets, if they are made aware that they might be wrong, they can change the odds they are offering to reflect this.

Generally speaking, sports and horse betting are supposed to use the odds to balance the betting so that any outcome leaves the house with the "House rake".  You are effectively betting against other players.

- I think there was a panic in Las Vegas over the chance that the Golden Knights would win the Stanley Cup (they took way to many "local sucker" bets on the expansion hockey team).  No idea if you can get decent odds on the Capitols (who have a severe advantage right now) to cover the bookies' fear of a Vegas victory.  Bettors aren't rational, and you can't always balance the books by giving the "right" odds.

- as far as I know, the odds on a horse race keep changing as long as they take bets (which probably doesn't stop until they start loading the horses).  Whatever they are when the race starts, that is what is paid out.  What they were when you made your bet is irrelevant (although a huge swing implies blatant mob action).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wumpus said:

Generally speaking, sports and horse betting are supposed to use the odds to balance the betting so that any outcome leaves the house with the "House rake".  You are effectively betting against other players.

- I think there was a panic in Las Vegas over the chance that the Golden Knights would win the Stanley Cup (they took way to many "local sucker" bets on the expansion hockey team).  No idea if you can get decent odds on the Capitols (who have a severe advantage right now) to cover the bookies' fear of a Vegas victory.  Bettors aren't rational, and you can't always balance the books by giving the "right" odds.

- as far as I know, the odds on a horse race keep changing as long as they take bets (which probably doesn't stop until they start loading the horses).  Whatever they are when the race starts, that is what is paid out.  What they were when you made your bet is irrelevant (although a huge swing implies blatant mob action).

Yes, that's a difference between parimutuel betting and bookmaking. Under parimutuel betting (common at horse and dog tracks), the listed odds are not fixed. What is fixed is the percentage of the total take that will go to each winning bet (win/place/show/exacta/trifecta, etc.). As more money gets bet on favorites, the payout gets smaller so that the total amount that will get paid out remains at the correct fixed percentage of the total take.

With bookmaking, the bookies try to do approximately the same thing by setting odds that they think will end up with one side of the betting covering the other side, leaving them with their rake-off. But unlike a horse track, if they guess wrong about where bettors want to put their money then the bookies can end up holding one side of the bet themselves. So typically as money builds up on one side of the book, the bookies change the odds to encourage it getting balanced out. However, each bettor gets the odds that were in place when the bet was made.

What many people overlook when they talk about the betting line is that the bookies are not really setting a line for how they think the odds in the sports event are split. They are really setting a line for they they think the money that will be bet on the sports event is split. If everyone was rational and had access to the same information, then in theory this distinction would be irrelevant. But in practice, the bookies have to understand which teams are (possibly irrationally) favored or disliked by the betting public and adjust their odds according to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should read what if? by Randall Munroe It's full of absurd questions and scientific answers. What would happen if you swam in a nuclear cooling pool? You'd be fine if you didn't touch a fuel rod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2018 at 8:36 AM, kerbiloid said:

It just fires a penetrator from top, into the thin top armor plate.
It has two of them onboard.

Correct: The variant of the TOW-2 displayed in the clip uses a pair of downwards-firing penetrators (thoght not an EFP or a shaped charge, they are, funnily enough, shaped somewhat like the classic tomahawk axe head) that are designed to punch through the lighter dorsal armor on the tank. Can't recall what they're made of, but it's not steel and not tungsten. Some proprietary alloy that's been forged pretty heavily to make it tougher and denser.

 

If you're ever played War Thunder, you'd be intimately aware of just how focused the armor on a tank is, even back in WWII. (Yes, that is indeed a hint on how to kill the Maus... find the shot trap between the gun mantlet and the deck and hit it with a hefty HE shell. about 1 in 3 odds of trashing the engine or transmission.) Modern tanks are able to be penetrated in vital areas from the top with surprising ease, even when an attack from head-on will run into armor that is as effective as several FEET of steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, wumpus said:

Generally speaking, sports and horse betting are supposed to use the odds to balance the betting so that any outcome leaves the house with the "House rake".  You are effectively betting against other players.

Yes, and no.  They do set their odds, as Mike mentioned, based on expected betting patterns.  But this does not pit you against another player.  You, from your point of view, which is the only one that matters,  are always  betting against the house.  The house house is not forcing players to bet against each other, just trying to balance the bets in their favor.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Correct: The variant of the TOW-2 displayed in the clip uses a pair of downwards-firing penetrators (thoght not an EFP or a shaped charge, they are, funnily enough, shaped somewhat like the classic tomahawk axe head)

They are EFPs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you make a bullet proof vest with a layer of titanium and a layer of sorbothane? How thick would the layers have to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DAL59 said:

a layer of titanium and a layer of sorbothane

Afaik, you don't wish a layer of titanium (or strong plastic), you wish pockets for titanium plates to reinforce your soft plastic vest when they shoot at you not with pistols (as usual) but with rifles ()when you got them too much)..

***

Say, your soft vest weights 2 kg, and the reinforced one - 20 kg,
Say, the reinforcing pockets cover, 2/3 of the soft vest area frontal and side projection.
Say, your are a cylinder d=0.4 m, h = 1 m 
Density of titanium = 4500 kg/m3.
Density of plastic = 1400 kg/m3.

Then your surface area = pi * 0.4 * 1 ~= 1.2 m2.
Front and side part of area = (3/4) * 1.2 = 0.9 m2.
Reinforcing pockets area = (2/3) * 0.9 = 0.6 m2.

Thickness of plastic = 2 / (1400 * 1.2) ~= 0.001 m = 1 mm.
Thickness of titanium plates = (20-2) / (4500 * 0.6) ~= 0.001 m = 6.7 mm.

So, you want a 1 mm thick plastic vest with pockets for 6.5 mm thick reinforcing plates covering 0.6 of side+front area..

The vest itself will weight = 1400 * 0.001 * (1.2 + 0.6) = 2.5 kg.
Titanium plates = 4500 * 0.0065 * 0.6 = 17.5 kg.

If they shoot at you not with rifles but just with submachineguns, you might prefer to use lighter plates made of plastic (putting them into the same pockets).
Plastic plates = 1400 * 0.0065 * 0.6 = 5.5 kg.

So, you have 3 options:
empty vest (against various trash) = 2.5 kg.
vest with plastic plates (against SMG) = 2.5 + 5.5 = 8 kg.
vest with titanium plates (against rifles) = 2.5 + 17.5 = 20 kg.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

vest with titanium plates (against rifles) = 2.5 + 17.5 = 20 kg.

Having working in a titanium fabrication shop (sheet metal cutting, bending, and welding), I can only say I'm surprised at that number.   20kg of Ti is a LOT of Ti.  17.5kg is still a lot of Ti.  Way more than I would have thought necessary for a vest. 

13 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Say, your are a cylinder d=0.4 m, h = 1 m 

Your numbers may be thrown off here.   In the medical field (I was a medic too), we go by the rules of 9's.   It is used to do rough calculations in the field (and in the hospital) for estimating burn coverage.  Various areas of the body are all units of 9% or fractions of it. 

X2604-R-27.png

The chest and back each count for 18% of the total surface area of a human adult.  So if take into account that a vest will only cover a portion of that amount, say 2/3 of each, then that's 24% total.   The burn coverage includes the sides and flanks, which a plate won't be able to cover.  The average adult male has a total surface area of 1.9 m2.   So 24% of that is .456 m2.   We can argue over the specifics if you'd like :PSo it looks like you'd need about half the plates you estimated.   4500 * .0065 * .456 = 13.338 kg.     That's assuming a 1/4 inch of Ti will stop a rifle round. 

  So maybe not half.   Still a lot of Ti, but a more manageable amount for wearing.

I don't know much about sorbothane (Hey, they're about 30 minutes down the road from me!), but I had worked out a design of about 1" kevlar and epoxy, sandwhiched between .1" Titanium plates with the intention of reinforcing police patrol car doors.  The officers would use the doors as cover, as they already do, bu now the doors would actually (hopefully) stop high powered  rounds. 

Looking at the Sorbo specs, @DAL59,I don't think it would be very good for penetration.  A bullet resistant material needs to flex under high impact forces, but not be penetrated.  I think it works well for cushioning stuff with large surface areas, but not for points.   Consider that bullet vests using kevlar are not very useful against being stabbed with a knife.  The point of a knife will separate the fibers, allowing it to enter.  Stab vests are made from a different construction than bullet vests.   The Ti plates would slow the bullet some, but the sorbo wouldn't do that much, allowing the 'point' forces to propagate through.   

Sorbo as a backer behind ceramic plates might help some, but I don't know if the added weight would be offset by it's usefulness.   For it to absorb the energy, it would have to be flush against the next layer down (person).  If there's a gap, the "oomph" of the impact would still be transferred to the person.   One of the biggest issues with armor like this is wearability.  They are hot and cumbersome.   Having a soft rubber layer clinging to your body would not be very comfortable, as it would not breathe, and you would get sweaty very quickly.  Which is an issue in hot climes, and can be deadly on it's own in very cold. 

Ceramic plates are better than metal for this application, rather than metals.  They are lighter and stronger in the areas they need to be. 

Edited by Gargamel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

I can only say I'm surprised at that number.   20kg of Ti is a LOT of Ti. 

I guess he can't carry more. :cool:

18 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

That's assuming a 1/4 inch of Ti will stop a rifle round.

It should. AKM bullet penetrates 7 mm of steel from a close distance, afaik. So, 6 mm of Ti looks enough to have broken ribs and squished guts stop a rifle bullet.
IRL they were 6.5 mm thick (1980s). Total mass up to 15 kg.

18 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

So it looks like you'd need about half the plates you estimated. 

Did you count the crotch protection?
(Human fuselage itself is not 1 m long.)

18 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

sorbothane (Hey, they're about 30 minutes down the road from me!), but I had worked out a design of about 1" kevlar and epoxy, sandwhiched between

That's why I mentioned more common "plastic".

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Did you count the crotch protection?
(Human fuselage itself is not 1 m long.)

I did not, but that only adds 1% by my numbers. 

8 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

I guess he can't carry more. :cool:

20kg of anything is about the limit of anything I would want to regularly pick up on my own.  I have no problem lifting can lift 100kg from the ground with some effort, but I don't want to do it repeatedly through out a day, loading a machine to cut it or something.  Plus, I usually never dealt with stuff over ~3mm, so for that mass, the plate gets quite long/wide, and is difficult to handle on your own, so a second set of hands always helps. 

But considering the limits for a person to carry and still be effective at what ever they are doing is around 40 kg, having 50% of it in just armor really limits what else you can carry (ammo, supplies, etc).  Hence why they are using ceramics. 

Edited by Gargamel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gargamel said:

I did not, but that only adds 1% by my numbers. 

Unless it covers laps protecting both crotch and femoral arteries, and allows to sit in a helicopter protecting the crotch from beneath.
Also shoulder parts.

Spoiler

B1074-2.jpg

 

5 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

20kg of anything is about the limit of anything I would want to regularly pick up on my own. 

https://topwar.ru/11508-otechestvennye-armeyskie-bronezhilety.html

Soviet vests of 1980s, Ti plates up to 6.5 mm, mass up to 14 kg.

Afaik, personal cargo is up to 60 kg in both US and SU (includes mortar or grenade launcher ammo).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always kept an eye on a polymer-backed ceramic tile array for superior armor protection. Think of composite armor on a tank, but on a smaller scale. Three layers of tesselated hexagonal tiles, staggered in a triangular pattern, with each layer separated/bound/encased by a kevlar-impregnated rubber, backed by a kevlar spall layer. I'm not sure how much more effective it'd be than existing AR-500 steel plates backed by kevlar, or if it'd be lighter, but it'd possibly be more flexible than the steel plate setup. Not sure if it'd be worth the tradeoff of possibly reduced protection. And the major downside of the ceramic tile concept compared to the steel plate system would be a noticeable reduction in protection if hit on the same tile as a previous shot, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.