The Wizard will bank this bet: 1/6 vs 1/11

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Meanwhile over at the WOV...they're still quoting what's posted here.

---

How many times have you quoted from WOV and posted it here and vice versa?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the troll

the agitation sets in and the results are vulgarity & insults....the gay math club

---

Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc stop. The Wizard and Miplet both in their videos are rotating the dice showing the 2 to justify their 1/11 answer. That is to say: on the same simulated roll, they have to rotate the die with the 2 to simulate how there can be eleven different combinations -- and that is not showing different rolls. They are doing that on the same roll. Look at the Wizard's video again. Look at miplet's video again.

---

Any why are they doing that? To show you what could happen on other throws. No one is saying the dice are being changed on any given thrown

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

One roll. One die shows a two. Yet both of them rotate that die with the two to justify their claim that the odds of 2-2 are 1/11.

---

They are simply providing you what you asked for. You wouldn't accept simple and obvious explanations. You demanded a video. So, they provided you with one. Their other option, rather than showing you the possible results by switching the die, was to create a video hours long that eventually produced the results by chance. I doubt very much you would have had the patience to watch it. It sound to me like they tried to make it as easy as possible for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

And for the record, this "party" was going on the WOV forum long before it ever came here.

---

I understand, but that does not change the question that was asked. You were told it was a trick question long ago but continued skim over our comments and argue against all of us that tried to help you understand.

If you think I'm being a jerk, you are right. It is what you earned for not taking the time to read and understand the comments of those trying to help you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Here we go. Kewl now admits that the 1/11 folks are ignoring the question because he says "when do you determine a probability? Before the roll or after?" And then he goes on to say after the roll is made there is no probabilities, there is just an outcome." EUREKA -- THEY HAVE FOUND IT!!

They have been making this error the entire time. They are talking probability to come up with the 1/11 answer and those of us who say it's 1/6 are looking at the actual problem.

Kewl: this question is not going to be answered by imagining the different combinations of two dice containing a 2. The question is answered by the conditions being presented: you have one die showing a two so what will it take to have 2-2?? That is 1/6 and that is determined by the conditions of the question.

---

omg...

Please try and understand this:

When you say "it is 1/6 because the other die has 6 faces" you are talking probability. Probability however is not defined after the roll. At that point all you have in front of you is the outcome, the manifestation of a probability for a throw of pair of dice. One particular face for each die. No probabilities are legal at that point because you have a fact you are staring at. Odds for the faces you're looking at to be the faces you're looking at - P=1. Fact.

You measure probability upfront/derive it from all possible outcomes. How do you know the odds for a 2 to come out on a single die is 1/6? Because you've defined/measured/concluded that the 2 face is only one and there are 6 faces total. You need to know what the odds are in order to conclude that what just happened
(the actual roll) was 1 in x to happen. You don't come after the event and say "well, now I only see 6 faces for this second die, so I'm going to say it is 1/6".

You are answering a totally different question here.

Kewl, you seem to be grasping some of the problems with the trickiness of the question as written. In the question, you start with the presentation of an event, which may or may not be one of multiple events, and which can easily be read as having been a past event. Then you have a question about probability, which would seem to require future event(s), even though it has not been made clear that the description that starts the paragraph is of future or multiple events. Many, if not most, people would read the opening sentences as describing a single event in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

If you wanted a question about dice combinations, it should have been written as a question about dice combinations.

---

No, there is no need to be written about dice combinations at all. The question is perfectly valid as it is. There is one ambiguity, but it was cleared up by you and others (whether the peeker says something if there is no deuce).

Ok, answer this question then:

"What is the probability of a fair throw of two standard dice showing 2-2 given that at least one of the dice shows 2?"

Still 1/6 in your head, right?
So there you go. The wording is not the issue, cause you'd answer a perfectly worded question, no humans, no peekers, the same way.

To summarize the 325 threads:

YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is another way to try and point why we need to consider 11 dice combinations.

Say we play a heads up texas hold'em deep stacks. We have pocket aces and after five-bet action pre-flop called by our opponent, the flop comes 2d-Ks-2h.
Given the pre-flop action we can safely eliminate any deuce in our opponent hand and are now wondering what are the odds we are beat at this point.
Well, the only hand that beats us is pocket kings. How many ways are there that give him a kings full?
There are three kings left in the deck, so there are three different ways he can be dealt KK. Kh Kd, Kh Kc, Kd Kc. So, we need to account three ways out of 1326 total ways to calculate the probability we're beat.

And how many ways are there in a fair throw of dice to roll 2-x? Eleven,right?

So we throw the dice and when the peeker announces "there is at least one deuce under the cup" we know that one of those 11 combos has just happened.
Given that information,the odds for exactly 2-2 to be the combo under the cup are 1 out of eleven.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to try and determine probability at this point, saying: "But the "other die" has 6 faces,right?". The fact that the "other die" or any die has 6 faces is relevant when we determine the probability before we throw a pair of dice. After the roll we can not possibly examine just one die and make any conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

To summarize the 325 threads:

YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!

---

I'm afraid this will go on as long as it's allowed to go on regnis. I learned long ago that they will not stop until they can impose their beliefs & will upon anyone who disagrees, no matter how clear and valid the disagreeing facts. It's more than a sickness to them--it defines their lives. When you look back and realize these math people spent all that time as young loners, it only makes sense that they'd stay stubborn until the bitter end, where they go out kicking and crying for their mommies (or mummies for mydear :)).

Let me wrap it up this way: you have one die showing a 2. The other die has a 1/6 chance of also being a 2. That's it.

Even if one die is red and one is blue??

Even if the wind is out of the northwest?

Even in a month with an "R" in it??

Even if they're Schrodinger's dice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Even if one die is red and one is blue??

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Even if the wind is out of the northwest?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Even in a month with an "R" in it??

---

Even if the Wizard has a pretty picture of the 36 combinations that two dice can show. And even if our friend Arc wants to take credit for being the first to say it was a trick or tricky or confusing question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Let me wrap it up this way: you have one die showing a 2. The other die has a 1/6 chance of also being a 2. That's it.

---

You can wrap it anyway you want, not that I care.

If you bet on it though, you'll lose money and that's what makes it real and proves you wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewl

You can wrap it anyway you want, not that I care.

If you bet on it though, you'll lose money and that's what makes it real and proves you wrong.

---

This is what makes these guys so special. First, he DEFINITELY cares. Next, his assertion that if you bet on it means you'll lose, is not bound by any of the parameters that makes a nerd a nerd. How many rolls? At 9:1 vs. 11:1, who's to say after 100 rolls the neurotic math geek doesn't lose?

You see kewl, it's all in the wording. Even the theory.

"It's not whether it was a 'good' bet; it's whether you win or lose". OBVIOUSLY!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

This is what makes these guys so special. First, he DEFINITELY cares. Next, his assertion that if you bet on it means you'll lose, is not bound by any of the parameters that makes a nerd a nerd. How many rolls? At 9:1 vs. 11:1, who's to say after 100 rolls the neurotic math geek doesn't lose?

You see kewl, it's all in the wording. Even the theory.

"It's not whether it was a 'good' bet; it's whether you win or lose". OBVIOUSLY!

---

If I have to draw a perfect scheme with dots, commas ,conditions etc every time I want to say something on a forum, just to satisfy trolls like you and language nerds, I'd deprive myself from all the fun.

Whoever wants to understand will get the point easily. Whoever wants to troll and whine about commas will do it anyway.

Have fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

"It's not whether it was a 'good' bet; it's whether you win or lose". OBVIOUSLY!

---

I'd rather have the best of both worlds.

In all seriousness, I don't care how anyone else plays. The only time I ever want someone to lose us when they are occupying a seat at a table game that we need.

Same goes for the dice problem. The way Alan reads it, he says it's 1/6, so be it.

Evidently language is less important than math. Who knew? I learn something new every day. Thanks, WoV.