The Poker Correlation to Quantum Mechanics

[koti]

Hey imatfaal, I understand what you wrote this time

 

Simple explanations satisfy me the most:

The act of observing an unknown state of particles involves acting upon them with some kind of radiation - photons for ex which influences the very act of observing these particles. The act of observing an unknown state of playing cards involves acting upon it with photons too but no matter how hard we try to bombard the cards with photons we will not influence the act of observing them. No matter how hard we try we won't get a deck of cards to behave in a quantum mechanical way.

 

Edited March 25, 2017 by koti

[imatfaal]

Hey imatfaal, I understand what you wrote this time

 

Simple explanations satisfy me the most:

The act of observing an unknown state of particles involves acting upon them with some kind of radiation - photons for ex which influences the very act of observing these particles. The act of observing an unknown state of playing cards involves acting upon it with photons too but no matter how hard we try to bombard the cards with photons we will not influence the act of observing them. No matter how hard we try we won't get a deck of cards to behave in a quantum mechanical way.

 

 

Agree.

 

Just to whisper - we have got to the point of entangling macro size objects, I think mirrors; one day in the future there may be a possibility t do extraordinary things with superposition. This is the Schroedinger's cat thang - a way of merging the quantum and the macro to make a seeming paradox. But that is off topic and liable to confuse which I why I said it in a whisper

[JohnLesser]

I do not believe you have accounted for the different playing styles and a multitude of different variances.

[koti]

Agree.

 

Just to whisper - we have got to the point of entangling macro size objects, I think mirrors; one day in the future there may be a possibility t do extraordinary things with superposition. This is the Schroedinger's cat thang - a way of merging the quantum and the macro to make a seeming paradox. But that is off topic and liable to confuse which I why I said it in a whisper

 

Yes, I've heard about that macro enanglement stuff. I think they managed to perform an experiment on 2 diamonds which for a ridiculously short time exhibited entalglement. I would presume it still happens on a quantum level though and has no correlation with the relations and unknowns in the game of poker.

I think that the closest we get to harvesting the quantum states so far is quantum computing. I couldn't imagine how we could harvest QM directly to everyday objects.

 

 

I do not believe you have accounted for the different playing styles and a multitude of different variances.

I agree. Like I mentioned in one of my previous posts, stack size variable is missing too which is crucial for a no limit game. It doesnt matter though...theres still no correlation other than that both systems - poker and QM deal with probabilities (on totally different levels) Edited March 25, 2017 by koti

[TakenItSeriously]

I do not believe you have accounted for the different playing styles and a multitude of different variances.

I agree. Like I mentioned in one of my previous posts, stack size variable is missing too which is crucial for a no limit game. It doesnt matter though...theres still no correlation other than that both systems - poker and QM deal with probabilities (on totally different levels)

I think you're both missing the point of what I am claiming to be analogous to QM, which is not poker strategy in its entirety, or the physical state of the cards or deck of cards.

 

The analogy lies in the hand range analysis aspect of poker which is an entirely conceptual or an imagined state of existence that doesn't ever actually exist.

 

The only things that truely exist are the actual cards our opponent is playing, but without any way of knowing what those are definitively at the beginning of play without cheating, we are forced to imagine them as a concoction of all reasonably possible hands.

 

Therefore they are analogous to superposition states in a sense because that is how we define them to be in the first place, but only in our minds.

 

Effectively, we define hand ranges to be a range of all possible hands at once, just as superposition states are all possible states of a fundamental particle at once.

 

In fact you could even say that poker calculators that run Monty-Carlo simulations of hand vs range is a realization of the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

 

Because it runs through all permutations of what an opponent may be holding as well as permutations of the deck state for all possible future outcomes and combines them all together in a giant equity calculation to show whats the most profitable play given the same scenario played over an infinite number of times. (not literally an infinite number, its just an expression that's often used.)

 

 

 

I should also add, that just based on a scale of numbers, these concepts are not on as different a level as you might think. Not that the following example is a direct comparison by any means, but it should give us more to think about when trying to imagine things that are outside of what our imaginations are used to dealing with.

 

If we were to consider that the Pauli Exclusion Principle required every electron to have an infinitessimally unique orbital state or electrons would be constantly colliding into each other.

 

While I'm not sure how that interplays with QM superposition states. That means that electrons must have a very large number of permutations somehow encoded into them to accomidate the number of every electron in the universe which would seem to be a pretty mind blowing number.

 

However, now compare the number of electrons in the universe to the number of possible deck states there are (unique ways the deck may be shuffled). Before looking it up, I'm guessing that the number of deck states is much larger.

 

Edit to add:

After looking it up, I was wrong, current estimates have the number of electrons on the order of 1E80 while the number of deck states are only on the order of 8E67.

Edited March 31, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[koti]

For those who are not familiar with poker strategy - Hand ranges are thought experiments performed by the oponent to try to determine your cards or put you on a range of possible hands you might be holding. There are multiple factors to take into account to be able to determine a players range, I will give the simplest examlpe accounting for just one factor - stack size which is the amount of money you have at the moment in chips. If in a no limit game a player has a high stack, his oponent will give him credit for a stronger hand than if he is on a low stack. On a hight stack his range will be more narrow, on a low stack his range will be wider. This is dealing with classical unknowns which Im sory to repeat again have nothing to do with superposition or entalglement we see in QM. In QM we are dealing with truly undetermined states, in poker we are deling with classical unknowns in card/deck/hand combinations - they are determined states with classical unknowns.

Edited March 31, 2017 by koti

[TakenItSeriously]

For those who are not familiar with poker strategy - Hand ranges are thought experiments performed by the oponent to try to determine your cards or put you on a range of possible hands you might be holding. There are multiple factors to take into account to be able to determine a players range, I will give the simplest examlpe accounting for just one factor - stack size which is the amount of money you have at the moment in chips. If in a no limit game a player has a high stack, his oponent will give him credit for a stronger hand than if he is on a low stack. On a hight stack his range will be more narrow, on a low stack his range will be wider. This is dealing with classical unknowns which Im sory to repeat again have nothing to do with superposition or entalglement we see in QM. In QM we are dealing with truly undetermined states, in poker we are deling with classical unknowns in card/deck/hand combinations - they are determined states with classical unknowns.

Again, the analogy is not the strategy you may use to determine a range, the analogy is the range itself and how the range must be treated by a player assuming the player knows how to mathematically treat a hand range using equity calculations and other maths.

 

You may argue the validity of what I am claiming, but you may not change what I am actually proposing, which is what you seem to be trying to do.

 

Never the less, most poker calculators can calculate the all-in equity of a hand vs a range of hands because it calculates the average winnings as if the player was playing an opponent who is holding all hands in his range at the same time, and find the average net outcome after calculating for thousands or perhaps millions of possible outcomes.

 

Iinside the calculator, the algorythims must have used algorythms pretty much identical to the way that quantum computers work, only using standard bits instead of qubits.

 

Thats why they can take so long when calculating for large ranges or multiple ranges.

 

What a poker calculator could not do at least until I found a solution a few years back was to account for the information that was lost in the muck and instead treated that information as if it never left the deck assuming all unseen cards are still part of the random deck state.

 

It was when I was trying to find a solution to recover this missing information that I encountered the problem where a quantum entanglement like effect was creating bugs in the algorythms that didnt seem possible to fix at least as long as I treated ranges as real things that obeyed cause and effect or didnt allow quantum teleportation.

 

So, no I did not witness any quantum effects, ever I only experienced persistent bugs in the poker simulator I was developing that didnt seem to have a propper fix because it seemed to require an instantaneous and simultaneous redistributiond of all ranges, which I believe QM calls normalization, every time new information was introduced into the game state. It's not exactly the perfect analog, few things are, but it represented the essence of how some effects especially when measuring different spin states to work.

 

Once ranges became so narrow such as an opponent representing only KK or AA, so that I can safely fold KK that is way behind 6 out of seven times and a tie 1 out of seven times that the analogy of measuring the same spin angle would seem valid.

 

It definitely wasnt the weak analogies that science documentaries use all the time that often spreads as much disinformation as information.

 

I imagine a game could be concocted that used cards that perfectly fit the analogy for creating a mathematically proper analog, though it would make for a pretty dumb game and be just as weird as the QM effect itself so I don't see the point. Like playing go fish with three cards face down in front of both players then asking if an opponent had any black queens and if he happened to turn over a black queen then a red queen would be revealed in front of you.

 

In any case, it wasn't until I stopped treating hand ranges as real things that I could finally find a work arounds that provided a close estimate to a solution and applied it retroactively with pretty good results.

Edited March 31, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[swansont]

The commonality is that there is a probability of being in a particular state. That's pretty much where it ends, though, because the treatment of QM allows for behavior that is not found in classical systems.

[TakenItSeriously]

The commonality is that there is a probability of being in a particular state. That's pretty much where it ends, though, because the treatment of QM allows for behavior that is not found in classical systems.

You should read the post before replying.

 

So, no I did not witness any quantum effects, ever... I only experienced persistent bugs in the poker simulator I was developing that didnt seem to have a propper fix...

[swansont]

You should read the post before replying.

 

 

 

 

I did. You insisted that "they are analogous to superposition states" when they are not. I chose to reply to that claim, instead of the one that contradicts it.

[TakenItSeriously]

I did. You insisted that "they are analogous to superposition states" when they are not. I chose to reply to that claim, instead of the one that contradicts it.

I covered that here:

The analogy lies in the hand range analysis aspect of poker which is an entirely conceptual or an imagined state of existence that doesn't ever actually exist.

 

The only things that truely exist are the actual cards our opponent is playing, but without any way of knowing what those are definitively at the beginning of play without cheating, we are forced to imagine them as a concoction of all reasonably possible hands.

 

Therefore they are analogous to superposition states in a sense because that is how we define them to be in the first place, but only in our minds.

 

Effectively, we define hand ranges to be a range of all possible hands at once, just as superposition states are all possible states of a fundamental particle at once.

So your saying that we cannot imagine hand ranges where all hands are treated as if they are simultaniously all true when making equity calculations?

[koti]

TakeItSeriously, you have erected a hypothesis that "poker is correlated to quantum mechanics" on superposition level. I will be more than glad if you could provide evidence for your hypothesis meanwhile, I will be sticking to my assertion that there are no superposition states in poker (that includes hand ranges) and the only correlation is probability. Quantum mechanical superposition states of particles are really undetermined, these states really all exist at once whereas hand ranges in poker are not in a superposition state - they do not exist all at once, they are simply possibilities (with certain probabilities based on equity/math/psychology) of what your opponent could have. I will be more than happy if you could provide any evidence for quantum mechanical superposition states within hand range probabilities in poker.

Edited April 1, 2017 by koti

[swansont]

So your saying that we cannot imagine hand ranges where all hands are treated as if they are simultaniously all true when making equity calculations?

It won't end up being the same calculation as in QM.

[TakenItSeriously]

TakeItSeriously, you have erected a hypothesis that "poker is correlated to quantum mechanics" on superposition level. I will be more than glad if you could provide evidence for your hypothesis meanwhile, I will be sticking to my assertion that there are no superposition states in poker (that includes hand ranges) and the only correlation is probability. Quantum mechanical superposition states of particles are really undetermined, these states really all exists at once whereas hand ranges in poker are not in a superposition state - they do not exist all at once, they are simply possibilities (with certain probabilities based on equity/math/psychology) of what your opponent could have. I will be more than happy if you could provide any evidence for quantum mechanical superposition states within hand range probabilities in poker.

You have AJs and are facing a player who has 3 Bet a shortstack all-in from the BB for a pot sized raise in a cash game. All other players have folded.

 

You have a long history with this player and you know his range is:

 

88+, ATs AJo

 

Your getting 2:1 on a call. Should you call?

 

To know whether you're getting the right odds to call you need to run a hand vs range equity calculation like the one shown above.

 

Another words your decision is based on your hand vs his range of hands with the 2:1 pot odds.

 

It won't end up being the same calculation as in QM.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the method is pretty much the same, but of course the details are different.

Edited March 31, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[swansont]

Actually, I'm pretty sure the method is pretty much the same, but of course the details are different.

Well, let's see the math.

[koti]

You have AJs and are facing a player who has 3 Bet a shortstack all-in from the BB for a pot sized raise in a cash game. All other players have folded.

 

You have a long history with this player and you know his range is:

 

88+, ATs AJo

 

Your getting 2:1 on a call. Should you call?

IMG_0023.PNG

 

To know whether you're getting the right odds to call you need to run a hand vs range equity calculation like the one shown above.

 

Another words your decision is based on your hand vs his range of hands with the 2:1 pot odds.

 

This example of a poker hand provides zero evidence for your assertions. What does calling or not calling an allin 3bet from the BB while having AJs and putting the guy on some range while having 2:1 odds have to do with quantum mechanical superposition? Its a rhetorical question - it has zero correlation, please dont even bother to explain and get youreself deeper into the rabit hole of nonsense. Edited April 1, 2017 by koti

[TakenItSeriously]

 

 

TakeItSeriously, you have erected a hypothesis that "poker is correlated to quantum mechanics" on superposition level. I will be more than glad if you could provide evidence for your hypothesis meanwhile, I will be sticking to my assertion that there are no superposition states in poker (that includes hand ranges) and the only correlation is probability. Quantum mechanical superposition states of particles are really undetermined, these states really all exist at once whereas hand ranges in poker are not in a superposition state - they do not exist all at once, they are simply possibilities (with certain probabilities based on equity/math/psychology) of what your opponent could have. I will be more than happy if you could provide any evidence for quantum mechanical superposition states within hand range probabilities in poker.

You have AJs and are facing a player who has 3 Bet a shortstack all-in from the BB for a pot sized raise in a cash game. All other players have folded.

 

You have a long history with this player and you know his range is:

88+, ATs AJo

 

Your getting 2:1 on a call. Should you call?

 

To know whether you're getting the right odds to call you need to run a hand vs range equity calculation like the one shown above. [edited to highlite the following:] Another words your decision is based on your hand vs his range of hands with the 2:1 pot odds.

This example of a poker hand provides zero evidence for your assertions. What does calling or not calling an allin 3bet from the BB while having AJs and putting the guy on some range while having 2:1 odds have to do with quantum mechanical superposition? Its a rhetorical question - it has zero correlation, please dont even bother to explain and get youreself deeper into the rabit hole of nonsense.

Please quote the part that doesn't make sense to you.

 

 

 

Well, let's see the math.

Unfortunately the math that treats an entire range of hands simultaniously as a single entity is integrated in poker calculators as part of the Monti-Carlo simmulation so I am limited as to how much can be revealed through math alone.

 

What I can show is how the range can be broken down into its component hands and then allow each hand equity to be calculated through simmulation individually.

 

At that point I can show how to calculate the EV of each hand individually and then recombine them all as a weighted average which should produce the same results as those given by the poker calculator.

 

In order to fully understand this process, I'll provide some explanations about some concepts used in poker first.

 

Equity calculations:

EV or Expected Value is calculated using "equity calculations" which are intended to analyze a single decision in order to determine the most profitable choice.

 

Equity stands for the percentage of times you are expected to win the hand when all-in.

 

Expected Value is the long term weighted average of the results, in terms of cash value, over time.

 

The decision in this case is wether it's better to call or fold to an all-in pre-flop bet.

 

The example:

Blinds $5/$10, $5 rake, 10 player, NLH

Villain is on the button playing a short stack of $100.

 

You Open raise to $30 one seat before the buttton with [Ah, Jh]. Button shoves all-in and both blinds fold.

 

Pot is $140 and it's $70 to call so your getting 2:1 odds for the call.

 

You put the button on a range of: (88+, ATs+, AJo+) and, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that range is accurate.

 

Hero's hand: AJs

Villain's range: 88+, ATs, AJo

 

We are comparing the equity of our hand vs the equity of all hands in villains range simultaniously which is the analogy in a nutshell.

 

Using a poker calculator we get the following results:

eq(AJs) = 38.3%

eq(88+, ATs, AJo) = 61.7%

 

Pot = $140 [+call]

to call = $70

 

EV(call)

call and win = $140·38.3% = $53.62

call and lose = $70·61.7% = -$43.19

⇒ EV(call) = $10.43

vs EV(fold) = 0

 

So we can see that even though you're a significant underdog vs villains range, the favorable pot odds makes you pot committed to a call.

 

Note that if the opponent happens to be ahead after you call, that doesn't mean that the call was a mistake. It's merely a natural consequence of making decisions vs a range of hands (when we're sometimes ahead and sometimes behind) in situations when the information isn't sufficient to defining the opponents hand to any better resolution, therefore we must make the decision that is the most correct for all possible outcomes of that range. I like to think of this as the Many Worlds Interpretation of Poker.

 

Since the math showing how those sumultanious results are calculated is done mostly within poker calculators that use Monti-Carlo simmulations. I am a little handcuffed when it comes to showing 100% of the math because of the simmulation component.

 

I will show how the problem can be manually broken down to be treated as individual hands and then recombined in order to get the same result that the poker calculator reached when treating the entire range as a single entity, vs a single hand.

 

I will start by removing the cards in our hand from the deck, since, when they are in our hand, they can't show up anywhere else.

 

Next, I will break down the opponents range into their component hands while taking their odds of occurrance into account using combinatorics. In quantum computing, this would be referred to as the qubit's coefficient term.

 

Removing the Ah and Jh from the deck state necessarily means that the opponents range will undergo many significant changes despite the opponent doing nothing himself that could trigger those changes. This concept is important when getting into Range Removal effects and can be seen using a hand matrix.

 

The Hand Matrix:

Figure 1: The poker Hand Matrix is a basic tool use in poker as well as most poker tools, mostly for representing 2 card combinations as a players hand in Texas Holdem.

 

The blue section represents all unpaired offsuit combinations such as [AcKd]

The orange section is for unpaired suited hands such as [QdJd]

The green is for paired hands such as [TcTh]

 

The numbers represent the number of ways 2 cards can combine to make the hand. For example a pair can be combined in six ways: [Tc,Td] [Tc,Th] [Tc,Ts] [Td,Th] [Td,Ts] [Th,Ts]

 

Notice that these regions can be somewhat misleading due to the fact that off suite and suited hands appear to be symmetrical within the matrix, but there are actually 3X as many off suited hands as suited hands.

 

It's also important to understand that the combinations shown are based on dealing from a complete and random deck state. Once information from observing cards, hands, or ranges are known, then the distribution of combinations instantly changes, even though we may not realize it since the actual range never seems to change only the odds that they are based upon changes.

 

Card Removal

Figure 2: Card Removal Matrix. When we assume a completely random deck state, then all possible range combinations are all evenly distributed within their combination types, ie. all unpaired off suit combos can be created 12 ways, All suited combos in 4 ways and their are 6 ways to make a pair.

 

Hand Ranges

At the beginning of a hand we must imagine an opponents hand as if they were all reasonable possible hands rather than making futile guesses about an single hand that he may be playing. Their are 1326 possible hand combinations that can make 169 possible hands. Therefore at the beginning of a hand, the only way to make meaningful decisions is to treat opponents hands as a range of all possible hands simultaniously. Even to the extent that we solve them as single hand vs a single range as a lumped sum. This is mostly done using computer simulations.

 

Therefore, the existance of the analogy is true because that's how we imagine hand ranges must exist in order to apply the math efficiently as one lumped entity, but its much easier to do this in conjunction with computer simmulation.

 

It's a useful analogy despite ranges being an imaginary concept because we still must treat the imaginary ranges as if they are real and still must use math and logic based on assuming a real range state which had always been true at least up untill now. Note, When dealing with Range Removal and treating ranges as if they were real when programming a vrtual reality poker simulation. I discovered that their are limits to how far we can treat ranges as being real brfore the math stops making sense.

 

Figure 3: The hand range of 88+, ATs+, AJo+ is shown here.

 

While poker equity calculators use Monty-Carlo simulations to treat all hands in a range as one. I cant show the math completely. What I can show is how we can break down the range into individual hands and compare the net results with those provided by the calculator.

 

Total combos in range = 6+6+6+3+6+6+3+3+3+3+3+6+9+9 = 72

Each hand combo can then be broken down as a percentage of the range

AKs, AQs, AJs, ATs+: (3/72)

AAp, JJp: (3/72)

KKp, QQp, TTp, 99p, 88p: (6/72)

AKo, AQo, AJo+: (9/72)

 

The equity for each hand vs [Ah, Jh] must be calculated individually:

eq(88) = 0.528

eq(99) = 0.529

eq(TT) = 0.542

eq(JJ) = 0.655

eq(QQ) = 0.679

eq(KK) = 0.679

eq(AA) = 0.871

eq(ATs) = 0.302

eq(AJs) = 0.500

eq(AQs) = 0.709

eq(AKs) = 0.710

eq(AJo) = 0.475

eq(AQo) = 0.697

eq(AKo) = 0.700

 

The Expected Value or EV for each hand can be calculated using the equation below:

EV(hand) = (h/r)·p·eq(hand)

Where:

EV = Expected Value in cash

h ≡ number of card combinations that create the hand

r ≡ number of card combinations in the range

p ≡ the size of the pot after a call

eq(hand) ≡ equity function of a hand v hand or hand v range.

 

Figure 4:: Breaking a hand range down into its component hands.

 

Results

Hand vs range results using PokerCruncher App for the iPad:

PokerCruncher-Advanced-iPad V.9.5.1

 

(Equity, Win, Tie)

Player 1: 38.3% 31.7% 13.3% [AhJh]

Player 2: 61.7% 55.0% 13.3% {88+, ATs+, AJo+}

 

Board: [? ? ? ? ?]

Deal To: River

Dead Cards: {}

 

Monte Carlo Simulation: 500000 trials

 

Note that this is generally as far as probability analysis or computers could take us ordinarily. However, It is important to note that this calculation is not entirely accurate unless it's for a heads up game. For game scenarios that include any players folding their hands, there is still quite a bit of information left unaccounted for since folded hands are ignored or treated as random cards that assumes players would fold AA pre-flop, which would never be realistic except under extreme trournament situations such as satelite bubbles.

 

However, until recently, it was the best that we could do with what we currently understand.

Edited April 3, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[swansont]

I can guarantee you the calculations use straightforward probabilities, and there are no superpositions, nor any of the other quantum weirdness related to that.

[TakenItSeriously]

I can guarantee you the calculations use straightforward probabilities, and there are no superpositions, nor any of the other quantum weirdness related to that.

Which I've stated myself many times already.

 

The weirdness doesn't show up until you try to account for all information and then it doesnt actually happen, it only prevents the math from working properly.

Edited April 3, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[swansont]

Which I've stated myself many times already.

 

 

And then contradicted yourself. I can edit the title, if you wish.

[TakenItSeriously]

And then contradicted yourself. I can edit the title, if you wish.

I don't believe I ever contradicted myself. the whole point was that I ran into the same kind of entanglement problem which was preventing capturing 100% of the information, in a virtual environment, though using work arounds, I was able to capture around 99% of it.

Edited April 3, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[koti]

TakenItSeriously, I can safely assume now that your thought processes are clear to me.

[swansont]

I don't believe I ever contradicted myself. the whole point was that I ran into the same kind of entanglement problem which was preventing capturing 100% of the information, in a virtual environment, though using work arounds, I was able to capture around 99% of it.

 

 

There is no entanglement with poker. This is the kind of contradiction I'm talking about: you say you know it has nothing to do with QM effects, and then you use a QM description applied to a classical system. The QM terminology has specific meaning, and it doesn't apply to the poker analysis.

[TakenItSeriously]

There is no entanglement with poker. This is the kind of contradiction I'm talking about: you say you know it has nothing to do with QM effects, and then you use a QM description applied to a classical system. The QM terminology has specific meaning, and it doesn't apply to the poker analysis.

We can try to think of it logically, but I tend to take logic to details that most are not comfortable with, so it may not be much help.

 

let's define the following:

A ≡ entanglement

B ≡ superposition states

C ≡ imaginary hand ranges (as if they were in a suoerposition state)

domains:

X ≡ the Quantum domain

Y ≡ the Human domain

Z ≡ a virtual domain of Y

 

Let's assume the following:

• A must follow as a consequence of somethings existence in the state of B within domain X.
• A is not possible within domain Y.
• We have a problem C in domain Y which requires imaging it in a state of B in order to begin solving for C.

Then solving C 100% becomes problematical at the point of where A must be the result because A cannot be the result in domain Y.

 

Next consider that even if we use a virtual domain, Z, to solve C. then problem C would still seem to be unsolvable as long as we continue to treat C as something that follows the Laws of Y.

 

That's when I began to experience the persistant bug in the creation of my poker simulator when implementing Range Removal which is intended to capture 100% of possible information.

 

The problem was that since it was a simmulation I treated everything as being very literal.

 

The, only solution seemed to involve going backwards in time and instantaneous updates in multiple locations which is not the typical kind of logic error I was accustomed to (outside of QM that is).

 

The trick was to stop being so literal when it came to hand ranges and divide the everything into a real state and an imaginary state. This allowed me to take liberties in the program in order to solve C retroactively which got me to around 99% accuracy (second order), though I haven't given up on a 100% solution which is possible using a model I've developed for QM involving loops which I won't go into here.

 

 

Figure 1: A dual helix model. Tap to animate.

Edited April 4, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[koti]

We can try to think of it logically, but I tend to take logic to details that most are not comfortable with, so it may not be much help.

 

let's define the following:

A ≡ entanglement

B ≡ superposition states

C ≡ imaginary hand ranges (as if they were in a suoerposition state)

domains:

X ≡ the Quantum domain

Y ≡ the Human domain

Z ≡ a virtual domain of Y

 

Let's assume the following:

• A must follow as a consequence of somethings existence in the state of B within domain X.
• A is not possible within domain Y.
• We have a problem C in domain Y which requires imaging it in a state of B in order to begin solving for C.

Then solving C 100% becomes problematical at the point of where A must be the result because A cannot be the result in domain Y.

 

Next consider that even if we use a virtual domain, Z, to solve C. then problem C would still seem to be unsolvable as long as we continue to treat C as something that follows the Laws of Y.

 

That's when I began to experience the persistant bug in the creation of my poker simulator when implementing Range Removal which is intended to capture 100% of possible information.

 

The problem was that since it was a simmulation I treated everything as being very literal.

 

The, only solution seemed to involve going backwards in time and instantaneous updates in multiple locations which is not the typical kind of logic error I was accustomed to (outside of QM that is).

 

The trick was to stop being so literal when it came to hand ranges and divide the everything into a real state and an imaginary state. This allowed me to take liberties in the program in order to solve C retroactively which got me to around 99% accuracy (second order), though I haven't given up on a 100% solution which is possible using a model I've developed for QM involving loops which I won't go into here.

 

A8BFF009-32BD-4C4C-A03D-CCA18AACFC95.gif

 

Figure 1: A dual helix model. Tap to animate.

As this is the core of this thread, by all means please do go into it here.