Yes a had a little more of a think about how much precision I would actually need, and you're right. I will give this parallelisation a go. Thanks for suggesting a totally different way to go about the problem. In any case it was good to learn how trees can be implemented in J.
On 3 March 2011 16:06, Devon McCormick <[email protected]> wrote: > Note that for (!13), exact probabilities would give you better than nine > digits of precision. This would be helpful if you are differentiating > between strategies that differ by only one part in a billion, but I've found > that three or four digits are all you need for most practical distinctions. > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Justin Paston-Cooper < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't know whether this would be sufficient. It would be nice to >> have exact probabilities, but I haven't really reasoned about the >> space required. 13! is already 6227020800, and there's going to be a >> table for each stage in each game. Ultimately I would like to use the >> probabilities to play this game on-line, finding bets which go against >> the calculated probabilities. I'd start worrying about the randomness >> of the games. >> ... >> > -- > Devon McCormick, CFA > ^me^ at acm. > org is my > preferred e-mail > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
