The one with 2 dots on it.
The one with 2 dots on it.
That's funny regnis....but also so pathetic that a collection of geniuses just can't comprehend that.Originally Posted by regnis
Singer's a moron, fraud, and has no credibility so he's ignored.
The bet is this. Roll 2-2 get paid 8:1. Roll 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5 or 2-6 and lose 1:1. Roll any other number and it's a push so re-roll. Minimum 500 rolls.
So there are ten ways to lose and you are only paying 8-to-1 ??Originally Posted by jbjb
I asked for details on the WOV site and got this response:
Two dice simultaneously and 8 to 1.
Do you seriously think we'd bet this at a disadvantage?????
Once again, I wouldn't take the bet. So jbjb I don't think you will have to ignore Rob because I doubt he will show up.
Then I take it back about the geniuses, esp. since I'm a moronOriginally Posted by jbjbBetter to be an AP forced to beg members for cash I suppose. Oh where did I go wrong!
This whole thread is a disaster, but at least it brought several new members to the forum.
So bravo, Alan, I guess...
Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com
No Dan. The disaster is that people don't understand how to read and understand a simple premise and question.
There is nothing wrong with their math. It's just that it is the wrong math for the question that was asked.
Other than them creating a complicated issue out of a very simple one--and I suppose it was because of how smart
I have a question for Dan since I'm not a live poker player. In that video they put up--as a way of belittling you out of frustration with Alan I guess--why would Helmuth stay in with such a lousy hand as suited Q2? Was it because he had such a big stack that he really didn't care if he lost, or does he regularly get away with bluffing like that with basically nothing? We saw the odds of you winning with the pair of 3's, and it was a far superior hand (although neither of you could have even come close to guessing those odds since no one but the TV knows what cards are out of play at that point).
Well, looks like this discussion is pretty much done. Hope the entire population of 4 members here enjoy jerking each other off. Farewell.
Would it make it easier to understand if we imagined the 2 dice were of different colors, Red and Blue?Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
R/B
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
1 2
2 2
3 2
4 2
5 2
6 2
Sure when we know the red dice is 2 the odds are 1/6. When we know the blue dice is 2 the odds are 1/6.
Because you are rolling BOTH dice and only know "1 of them is a 2", don't we consider ALL possible outcomes where at least one of them is a 2, but don't know which one?
There are 11 unique outcomes with 1 winning outcome of 2,2.
Last edited by a2a3dseddie; 04-21-2015 at 05:38 AM.
I see several folks are trying to save face by changing the rules of the game. It was never stated that any particular dice was a 2. At least we now know you guys actually understand you would lose under the initial rules. Otherwise, why would you be trying to change them.
Okay, I'm coming to the rescue (or I am not coming to the rescue). If your friend would be so kind as to take the die with the two showing out of the cup and give it away to someone in need of a single die, what is the chance that the poor die still in the cup shows a 2?
100,000,000,000,000,000 in 1,100,000,000,000,000,000 ?
1,000,000,000 to 11,000,000,000?
Frank--in the game I ran in 8th grade behind the school ball fields, there probably wouldn't have even been another 2 on that second die. House edge--my dice.Originally Posted by FrankScoblete
When you write experimental conditions, the onus is on the writer to state any and all conditions, using multiple, overlapping descriptions if necessary, so as to avoid all confusion, especially since many researchers reading the descriptions are not reading them in their native language. The onus for understanding something like this is on the writer. Any failure of interpretation is the fault of the writer, given a reasonable audience. Now the WoV folks may think this is an audience of less than average intelligence. That's probably not a correct interpretation, given the general success of many (non-anonymous) posters here.
I understand, according to Rob, that the WoV folks are berating the members of this forum. That's certainly their right. Having spent much of my life hanging out with math professors and people who teach statistics, I can tell you that this forum has its math deficiencies on occasion. This particular silly argument, however, is about a brief statement purposefully written in an unclear fashion so as to create the look of a paradox. An editor at any academic journal would have required an expansion of the statement and a rewrite.
I understand the WoV members have an annual get together. I think it appropriate that Rob and I attend so that we can be properly impressed by the personal attributes of the membership and report on those attributes to the outside world. So when and where is the annual shindig?
Last edited by redietz; 04-21-2015 at 08:13 AM.
Sorry red but I disagree. I thought the description was very accurate and concise. Yes, since this situation is very subtle there will always be misunderstanding by those who are not trained to look for these kind of subtleties. The problem is designed specifically to force people to think outside the box. If a person missed it, it is not a big deal. Lots of people will miss it. The key is to learn from the problem and be able to handle future problems a little better. To deny the correct answer is actually a sign of a closed mind or massive ego.
Last edited by arcimede$; 04-21-2015 at 08:20 AM.
You shouldn't be so hard on yourself Arci.
Correct, The question couldn't be clearer. The dice are thrown together.
You're missing the point, Arci, and actually making my point. In fact, in an ironic way, what you just did in your interpretation of what I said is directly analogous to those people who "misread" the problem. Here's what I mean:
Concise and clear are not the issue. Something can be concise and clear -- to an expert in a field or someone looking from the writer's perspective -- and still be bad writing because it's not understandable to the majority of the readers. If, as you said, many if not most people would get it wrong, then it has failed as a piece of writing to the majority of the readers. That means it has failed as a piece of writing, period. You can't say, well, this is clear to some or a minority of readers, so it is clear. That's not really the way one should write. One writes for an audience. If the WoV folks are writing for "their" audience, great. But in this case, they are not.
Now here's the thing that ticks me off. This was clearly designed to be just what you described -- a piece of writing, a description, that would partition the reading audience into two factions. There would be (probably a minority) of readers who would "get it" and say 1 in 11. There would (probably) be a majority of readers who would not "get it" and say 1 in 6. So the entire thing is an exercise in partitioning an audience for no good reason so some are "clever" and some are not.
Clear and concise, in this case, doesn't mean "understood." It is the writer's responsibility to be understood. Designing something to be clear and concise in an obvious and superficial sense, but still be something easily read two ways or misinterpreted, is purposeful bad writing. It also has an aristocratic, condescending context to it that makes me a little ill.
Arci, I know you're a math guy. I hope I've written this well enough that you understand what I'm saying here. I actually really want you to understand a writer's angle on this, so let me know if this isn't clear.
And Rob, I get your feeling that the WoV folks have an unwarranted superiority complex.
Last edited by redietz; 04-21-2015 at 08:47 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote