[1200 TH] EMC: 0 Fee DGM. Anonymous PPS. US & EU servers. No Registration!

[cuz0882]

I believe the jump in hash rate is due to hoppers calculating that there's a high probability of us finding blocks.  In other words, we're so down on our luck that there's bound to be a bright future.

<3 hoppers on ECM! Time to cash in DGM benefits!

DGM does not benefit from pool hoppers. I don't know why it says that in the FAQ. That is false though. I think the extra hash rate may be from GPUMAX, they can use up to 200gh here. Most of the hashrate is coming from 2 large miners.

[Vbs]

I believe the jump in hash rate is due to hoppers calculating that there's a high probability of us finding blocks.  In other words, we're so down on our luck that there's bound to be a bright future.

<3 hoppers on ECM! Time to cash in DGM benefits!

DGM does not benefit from pool hoppers. I don't know why it says that in the FAQ. That is false though. I think the extra hash rate may be from GPUMAX, they can use up to 200gh here. Most of the hashrate is coming from 2 large miners.

Reduced variance is a good enough benefit for me!

[Math Man]

Its me, Im bad luck Im telling ya, but I love this pool! LOL

And where did all the crazy hashrate come from the last 10hrs?!?!?!?!?

I believe the jump in hash rate is due to hoppers calculating that there's a high probability of us finding blocks.  In other words, we're so down on our luck that there's bound to be a bright future.

Or more correctly known as ... Gambler's Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamblers_fallacy

No,  not really. I was referring more to the law of large numbers.

[Inaba]

Yeah, I think the two huge hashrate's are from GPUmax.

As far as the FAQ goes, I should probably reword it, but it does give a benefit when compared with proportional pools and it's possible to end up with more than your share of proportional depending how early the hopper(s) start and when they leave compared to when it's solved.

[stevegee58]

I wonder what caused that sudden drop in hash rate from around 880 to around 500 a few hours ago...

[Inaba]

GPUmax moving on I am guessing

[kano]

Its me, Im bad luck Im telling ya, but I love this pool! LOL

And where did all the crazy hashrate come from the last 10hrs?!?!?!?!?

I believe the jump in hash rate is due to hoppers calculating that there's a high probability of us finding blocks.  In other words, we're so down on our luck that there's bound to be a bright future.

Or more correctly known as ... Gambler's Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamblers_fallacy

No,  not really. I was referring more to the law of large numbers.

The numbers aren't large, it's Gambler's Fallacy.

[Kluge]

How long until you offer Crazy Bean payout after purchasing Starburst's manufactory? - Or are you not planning on having leftovers?

[Inaba]

No leftovers.  They are mine.

I have 10 bags now.  I need more to last me until next Easter.  Send Crazy Beans!

[Math Man]

Its me, Im bad luck Im telling ya, but I love this pool! LOL

And where did all the crazy hashrate come from the last 10hrs?!?!?!?!?

I believe the jump in hash rate is due to hoppers calculating that there's a high probability of us finding blocks.  In other words, we're so down on our luck that there's bound to be a bright future.

Or more correctly known as ... Gambler's Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamblers_fallacy

No,  not really. I was referring more to the law of large numbers.

The numbers aren't large, it's Gambler's Fallacy.

The Gambler's fallacy is more concerned with discrete cases or the following event.  That was not my original point, and you are mistaking my intentions with a completely separate idea.

Don't let the "large" in the name of the law fool you.  The law of large numbers doesn't depend upon what you may think is a "large" number.  In fact, the largeness is arbitrary.  The law of large numbers simply states that "as the number of trials of a random process increases, the percentage difference between the expected and actual values goes to zero," 

If you really want to continue this debate, we can do so via PM.  Although, this is about all I'm going to say about this for a while.  I have an actuarial exam that I'm studying for.  So, don't expect an immediate response from me.

[kano]

Its me, Im bad luck Im telling ya, but I love this pool! LOL

And where did all the crazy hashrate come from the last 10hrs?!?!?!?!?

I believe the jump in hash rate is due to hoppers calculating that there's a high probability of us finding blocks.  In other words, we're so down on our luck that there's bound to be a bright future.

Or more correctly known as ... Gambler's Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamblers_fallacy

No,  not really. I was referring more to the law of large numbers.

The numbers aren't large, it's Gambler's Fallacy.

The Gambler's fallacy is more concerned with discrete cases or the following event.  That was not my original point, and you are mistaking my intentions with a completely separate idea.

Don't let the "large" in the name of the law fool you.  The law of large numbers doesn't depend upon what you may think is a "large" number.  In fact, the largeness is arbitrary.  The law of large numbers simply states that "as the number of trials of a random process increases, the percentage difference between the expected and actual values goes to zero," 

If you really want to continue this debate, we can do so via PM.  Although, this is about all I'm going to say about this for a while.  I have an actuarial exam that I'm studying for.  So, don't expect an immediate response from me.

Yes I do know what an Actuary is - so saying you are, makes me wonder if you will pass based on your original comment
If I remember correctly back when I was at university, the students in stats that were doing actuarial studies had to get distinction level grades or they failed.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Its me, Im bad luck Im telling ya, but I love this pool! LOL

And where did all the crazy hashrate come from the last 10hrs?!?!?!?!?

I believe the jump in hash rate is due to hoppers calculating that there's a high probability of us finding blocks.  In other words, we're so down on our luck that there's bound to be a bright future.

Or more correctly known as ... Gambler's Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamblers_fallacy

No,  not really. I was referring more to the law of large numbers.

The numbers aren't large, it's Gambler's Fallacy.

The Gambler's fallacy is more concerned with discrete cases or the following event.  That was not my original point, and you are mistaking my intentions with a completely separate idea.

Don't let the "large" in the name of the law fool you.  The law of large numbers doesn't depend upon what you may think is a "large" number.  In fact, the largeness is arbitrary.  The law of large numbers simply states that "as the number of trials of a random process increases, the percentage difference between the expected and actual values goes to zero,"  

If you really want to continue this debate, we can do so via PM.  Although, this is about all I'm going to say about this for a while.  I have an actuarial exam that I'm studying for.  So, don't expect an immediate response from me.

I agree with kano. The Gambler's Fallacy isn't restricted to just discrete cases. It's exactly what you described - the belief that recent bad luck increases the chances of imminent good luck. For independent events (such as finding blocks) this is false. The way the LLN works is not by anticorrelating proximate events, and the fallacious belief that it is is, once again, the gambler's fallacy.

Of course, regardless of how you call it, the premise - that now is a better time to mine because we haven't found a block for a while - is wrong, and if it was true, the pool would be hoppable.

You could also read up on Memorylessness.

[Math Man]

I agree with kano. The Gambler's Fallacy isn't restricted to just discrete cases. It's exactly what you described - the belief that recent bad luck increases the chances of good luck. For independent events (such as finding blocks) this is false. The LLN doesn't work by anticorrelating proximate events, and the fallacious belief that it does is, once again, the gambler's fallacy.

Meni,

I know exactly what you are getting at, and that is not what I intended with my original statement.  I should have been more explicit what I was referring to.  You're and kano are reading into what I said in one way, I meant it another.  

As our average shares per block is significantly higher than the expected value, over the next X blocks, where X is arbitrarily "large", our average shares will tend toward the median.  The only way for that to happen is to have rounds whose total shares are near or below the median.  That's why now is a good time to mine here for the next X blocks.

I wasn't talking about this block, or the next, or the one after, etc. in my original statement.  I talking about the next X blocks, even though I wasn't explicit in saying that.

Now, seriously.  I'm done.  I need to study.

[cuz0882]

I guess are bad luck was not as bad as it seemed. Looks like the same issue as before.

[Inaba]

Yeah, there were a couple stuck blocks, and there is still a stuck NMC block I'm trying to figure out.  Something isn't quite right with NMC, and I can't figure out if it's the blockchain or the wallet - likely the later. 

[GenTarkin]

I Was about to say, this is some of the hugest variance Ive ever seen on a pool =P 3 blocks back to back...man rofl!

[stoppots]

Man nice run of blocks

[Math Man]

Man nice run of blocks

I know, right!?  99.95%, 99.99%, 98.24%, all in a row.  Keep 'em coming!

[cuz0882]

Man nice run of blocks

I know, right!?  99.95%, 99.99%, 98.24%, all in a row.  Keep 'em coming!

Let's not, the share ratio is way off. Although I did get 10% of the shares on 1 block. Hard to see the effect on payouts with dgm. It's pretty clear on the namecoin blocks though.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

I agree with kano. The Gambler's Fallacy isn't restricted to just discrete cases. It's exactly what you described - the belief that recent bad luck increases the chances of good luck. For independent events (such as finding blocks) this is false. The LLN doesn't work by anticorrelating proximate events, and the fallacious belief that it does is, once again, the gambler's fallacy.

Meni,

I know exactly what you are getting at, and that is not what I intended with my original statement.  I should have been more explicit what I was referring to.  You're and kano are reading into what I said in one way, I meant it another.  

As our average shares per block is significantly higher than the expected value, over the next X blocks, where X is arbitrarily "large", our average shares will tend toward the median.  The only way for that to happen is to have rounds whose total shares are near or below the median.  That's why now is a good time to mine here for the next X blocks.

I wasn't talking about this block, or the next, or the one after, etc. in my original statement.  I talking about the next X blocks, even though I wasn't explicit in saying that.

Now, seriously.  I'm done.  I need to study.

I'm sorry, but this is still wrong.

Yes, there will be rounds whose total shares are below the median. No, the frequency of such rounds over the next X blocks is not affected whatsoever by the fact that we've had recently some rounds with total shares above the median. No, now is not a better time to mine here than any other.

It is instructive to understand that while (number of occurences / number of attempts) approaches the probability of occurrence for n->Infinity, (number of occurences - expected number of occurrences) does not approach 0, rather it increases in absolute variance for larger n.

You don't need to discuss this further if you don't want. Either you take my word for it or, when you have the time, read up on the matter, gain some experience, run simulations etc.

Man nice run of blocks

I know, right!?  99.95%, 99.99%, 98.24%, all in a row.  Keep 'em coming!

Let's not, the share ratio is way off. Although I did get 10% of the shares on 1 block. Hard to see the effect on payouts with dgm. It's pretty clear on the namecoin blocks though.

Forget the share ratio. For every block found you get rewarded for shares you submitted in the past. In other words, more blocks per time unit = more money.