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

[Rob.Singer]

Hi Rob,
For the elimination of doubt, nothing about any agers.
The original question verbatim from Alan's first post:-


The original question as posed on Wizard's forum first post:-


Verbatim the same.

Quite different to the one on your comments page: I don't know where that came from.

There was never a question about 'the second die' being a two.

There was a question about the remaining pair of dice :-

'What is the probability that both dice are showing a 2?'

There was never any mention of taking or setting aside one of the dice. There was never actually mention of 'peeking at ONE of the dice' in the OQ

It's easy to see why this isn't going as smoothly as it should. I can't post on WoV and I'm not reading everything that's said there, while Alan's running ragged between the two forums with info and more info. All I can say about the issue is what I've been saying here all along--not what some of the WoV idiots are claiming I said or pasting bits of altered posts there that I made here.

What the geniuses there are missing is that I'm using this dice issue/bet to finally get them to have the balls to back up their cowardly anonymous lies that I can't win using the Singer Play Strategy in a session. They backed out before banning me, so I'm giving them another opportunity to back up their lies. I don't care about $10 a roll whether the odds are 6-1 or 9-1 or 11-1 on a remaining die, or whether it's still, still spinning, or re-rolled. This dice problem has been interesting and thought-provoking, but I'm not a dice guy. I am and have always been a far better video poker player--with the winnings and the life to prove it--than anyone on the wizard's forum. They rely on the safety of anonymity from hiding behind their computers. I don't.

[OnceDear]

Oh, You misinterpreted then? Pity that.
Still, it was good to have a thread to hijack.

You seem to have confirmed something about Alan's 1/6 interpretation being wrong.

[arcimede$]

But Arc just to be sure you understand: the bet doesn't start unless there is already ONE two showing. And frankly that means you have a 1/6 chance. Nuff said.

All the situations I listed have at least one 2 showing. This is not difficult, Alan.

Anyone else getting a chuckle out of Singer turning tail and running?

[redietz]

This has been a record-setting waste of space. I will say this for Rob -- in entry #10 on this thread, he provided the clearest summary and explanation of the situation. It's obvious Rob had a handle on this from the beginning. I'm no fan of Rob's video poker riff, but if he can sit down and, in a few minutes off the top of his head, summarize the issues in language Alan (and virtually all readers) can grasp, then that highlights how the original question was just a parlor trick.

Now that we've all benefited immensely from meeting the WoV crew, perhaps we can get back to, you know, Las Vegas and actual gambling and stuff like that. I get the feeling that kind of material might be of some value to the WoV posters, as I suspect their Las Vegas experiences may be a bit limited.

[OnceDear]

What the geniuses there are missing is that I'm using this dice issue/bet to finally get them to have the balls to back up their cowardly anonymous lies that I can't win...[Bile deleted]

Maybe that's something else that Alan was missing.
Rob has used his contribution to both threads (and his comments page on Alan's site) solely for the purpose of badmouthing and attempting to insult the members of WOV. Rob's only meaningful contribution to the 'answer to the original question' has been to finally agree that Alan got it wrong (and is still getting it wrong). Cheers Rob.

Anything to add Scoblete?

[jbjb]

This has been a record-setting waste of space. I will say this for Rob -- in entry #10 on this thread, he provided the clearest summary and explanation of the situation. It's obvious Rob had a handle on this from the beginning. I'm no fan of Rob's video poker riff, but if he can sit down and, in a few minutes off the top of his head, summarize the issues in language Alan (and virtually all readers) can grasp, then that highlights how the original question was just a parlor trick.

Now that we've all benefited immensely from meeting the WoV crew, perhaps we can get back to, you know, Las Vegas and actual gambling and stuff like that. I get the feeling that kind of material might be of some value to the WoV posters, as I suspect their Las Vegas experiences may be a bit limited.

You mean CET and TR right?

[jbjb]

Maybe that's something else that Alan was missing.
Rob has used his contribution to both threads (and his comments page on Alan's site) solely for the purpose of badmouthing and attempting to insult the members of WOV. Rob's only meaningful contribution to the 'answer to the original question' has been to finally agree that Alan got it wrong (and is still getting it wrong). Cheers Rob.

Anything to add Scoblete?

Rob is 100% pure entertainment over here!

[kewl]

This has been a record-setting waste of space. I will say this for Rob -- in entry #10 on this thread, he provided the clearest summary and explanation of the situation. It's obvious Rob had a handle on this from the beginning. I'm no fan of Rob's video poker riff, but if he can sit down and, in a few minutes off the top of his head, summarize the issues in language Alan (and virtually all readers) can grasp, then that highlights how the original question was just a parlor trick.

Nope. Not a parlor trick at all. The question is as clear as it gets (I would've add an additional sentence just to make it crystal clear, but it works fine as it is now). It's just some folks need to learn basic probability before making bold erroneous claims.

If we're at this point, I'll explain why. When two dice are peeked at and we're informed that one of them is a 2, if that die is removed from the scene then we're left with a single die that no longer has a numerical relationship to the die showing a 2. This is the way I interpret the problem with the wording from the OP, and the odds that 2nd die will be a 2 is 6-1.

Alrighty then. Remove the dice with a two from scene at will. Take the bet at 9 for 1 and remove the dice whenever at least one of them is a two and reveal the other.
Lol, what is that even going to accomplish? Alter the odds on the remaining die??

Need to read some Wiki facts on Probability, me thinks.

[redietz]

LOL -- I'm no fan of the CET and TR riffs, either. I was one of those folks who, 20 years ago, first compared Harrah's to the Borg. I want them to burn to the ground, more or less, as they are the polar opposite of Benny Binion's old style of "giving a good gamble."

The Las Vegas forum here has a limited number of folks and goes through various trends. Frankly, and I only perused the WoV forum for an hour or so and looked at the recent stuff, that forum looks like a math club, which is fine. As to which forum actually would benefit someone going to LV, I have no idea. As to which forum has the more experienced actual gamblers, I suspect this one. I could be wrong. There's plenty of naive, banal stuff on WoV.

You know, WoVers, one thing you should really consider is that you are a math club. That doesn't mean you communicate well. The posters here, many of them, are pretty good writers. You might (gasps from the audience) actually learn something from a writing perspective here.

[kewl]

You know, WoVers, one thing you should really consider is that you are a math club. That doesn't mean you communicate well. The posters here, many of them, are pretty good writers. You might (gasps from the audience) actually learn something from a writing perspective here.

And what is all that have to do with the topic? When you roll two dice and have at least one of them showing a deuce, what is the probability that the other die is a two as well? 1/6 or 1/11? Simple as that.

[Alan Mendelson]

Here's what I've learned: Rob can't or won't understand that "the bet" is the same thing he was arguing about when he said the answer should be 1/6. Now he says the answer is 1/11. Okay Rob just say you initially made a mistake and the answer to the original question was 1/11 just as Arc and the others said it was. I am sticking with 1/6.

[kewl]

I am sticking with 1/6.

And you are wrong as well.
At least all this posting and the WoV challenge might save some innocent soul from getting fired by you in the future, just because he had better math understanding.

[jbjb]

And you are wrong as well.
At least all this posting and the WoV challenge might save some innocent soul from getting fired by you in the future, just because he had better math understanding.

Remember, these are the guys that pay for AP's. You'd think Alan's craps knowledge would show him the light, but alas, it hasn't. Where is Ahigh when you need him lol

[arcimede$]

Here's what I've learned: Rob can't or won't understand that "the bet" is the same thing he was arguing about when he said the answer should be 1/6. Now he says the answer is 1/11. Okay Rob just say you initially made a mistake and the answer to the original question was 1/11 just as Arc and the others said it was. I am sticking with 1/6.

Then you're going to get stuck losing a lot of nickels. Why don't you actually get 11 sets of dice and do this on your own. Lay them out with at least one 2 showing. Make sure there are no duplicates. Then see for yourself that these are the 11 situations that would arise in the bet itself. All other situations would be a re-toss. Only one of these situations has 2-2 and that is the only one where you would win.

[jbjb]

Then you're going to get stuck losing a lot of nickels. Why don't you actually get 11 sets of dice and do this on your own. Lay them out with at least one 2 showing. Make sure there are no duplicates. Then see for yourself that these are the 11 situations that would arise in the bet itself. All other situations would be a re-toss. Only one of these situations has 2-2 and that is the only one where you would win.

I foresee a bet like this eventually hitting the tables and you can bet your bottom dollar many players will lose their ass on it. I'd hate for Alan to be one of them.

[regnis]

Everyone is making this too hard. If the bet is as Alan says and there is no action unless a 2 is rolled, and to satisfy Rob that once there is a 2 it will be set aside, then cut out all the dead rolls. Set one on 2, and just roll the second one and make your bets. Again---I'll make the bet all day.

Clearly, the 1-11's can't make this wager and therefore don't understand the wager as Alan describes, just like they don't understand the original riddle.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, when you get up please read my early posts and read & re-read what redietz said about what I've been saying. These fools from WoV only came over here because they would get (horror of horrors!) SUSPENDED! if they acted like morons over there. When Mike sold out to foreigners, his employment contract must have stated that WoV members no longer have a responsibility to follow the wizard's rules. And OF COURSE my name pops up all the time there. I made them look like fools back then over video poker, and I'm doing it again today and it's not something prima donnas can easily stomach. Didn't you know--math geeks hold forever grudges. Just look at arci's dumb comment above (although recent personal events for him undoubtedly have fueled his hatred & jealousy of me to untold levels) .

If the whining geniuses (who are very easy and much fun to pick on btw...) want to have the courage to face me at a vp machine bet, you know where I am. I'll leave the dice to Alan, whom I HOPE can re-read earlier posts and finally come to the realization that WoV is messing with you. And it ain't no big deal.

[Rob.Singer]

Everyone is making this too hard. If the bet is as Alan says and there is no action unless a 2 is rolled, and to satisfy Rob that once there is a 2 it will be set aside, then cut out all the dead rolls. Set one on 2, and just roll the second one and make your bets. Again---I'll make the bet all day.

Clearly, the 1-11's can't make this wager and therefore don't understand the wager as Alan describes, just like they don't understand the original riddle.

Well put. Let's see the mensa explanation on how tossing die #2 with another die or alone makes a difference. But don't ever expect it to get press time on WoV. They're like the liberal TV networks. When Obama lies into the cameras or Hillary makes up the stupidest excuses for her dumb professional actions, they look the other way.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob the bet as it is written is as if one die is set aside. Now stop your abusive rants.

[kewl]

Everyone is making this too hard. If the bet is as Alan says and there is no action unless a 2 is rolled, and to satisfy Rob that once there is a 2 it will be set aside, then cut out all the dead rolls. Set one on 2, and just roll the second one and make your bets. Again---I'll make the bet all day.

Clearly, the 1-11's can't make this wager and therefore don't understand the wager as Alan describes, just like they don't understand the original riddle.

Set one on 2, and just roll the second one and make your bets.

WOW. How did you, writing geniuses, come to this conclusion? So, to summarize the question as asked, not going to copy for an N-th time, can be simplified to "set a side one die as two and roll the other die"? How exactly was your thought process working in order to convert the OQ into this? Extremely curios ...

Okay, going to copy it none the less. So this:

"You have two 6-sided dice in a cup. You shake the dice, and slam the cup down onto the table, hiding the result. Your partner peeks under the cup, and tells you, truthfully, "At least one of the dice is a 2."

What is the probability that both dice are showing a 2?"
somehow converts to this:


"Set one die on 2, and just roll the second one and make your bets"

What is the relation between those two settings? Anyone? Please help me.