It was two years ago today...

[Alan Mendelson]

These morons have a comprehension problem. The puzzle clearly didn't say set a die to a number and roll the other.

They're just trolling looking for attention. I suggest just ignoring them from now on and don't give them the attention.

No the problem did not say to set a die to a certain number and then roll the other die. I was just trying to simplify it for your simple mind.

You still haven't explained your two piles of six spades and six hearts. Are you going to do it?

[Alan Mendelson]

Let's assume you're the so-called peeker, Eddie. You look under the cup and see a 2 but do not look at the other die. You report "at least one of the dice is a 2". You also will answer your own question that the probability of there being 2-2 is 1 in 6--not 1 in 11, because you know which of the two dice shows a 2 at the moment.

Alan, OTOH, also "knows" it's 1 in 6 because in his mind he has taken one of the dice completely out of the picture, leaving only one die. But what does a WoV armchair "AP" have to say about this? Why....1 in 11 of course! And this is only because they are assuming nobody but the peeker knows what he has seen.

Day-in/day-out the prevailing answer of 1 in 6 will be correct,

Thank you Rob.

[Alan Mendelson]

While Alan is ready to film any gambling action over the two dice puzzle he doesn't seem to want to throw down any money on it himself. When you think the true odds on an event are 5 to 1 against but you are getting an 8 to 1 payoff when it occurs you have a massive advantage. At $100 a pop, per every six decisions you would make $600 in action and get an $800 return. That's a 25% edge. Why would you turn down a game like this but have no problem betting $25 a hand at 99% video poker?

Mickey when I play video poker, I sometimes am betting $125 per hand. When I hit the two $100,000 royals I was betting $125 a hand.

[mickeycrimm]

[QUOTE=Alan Mendelson;48616]

Mickey when I play video poker, I sometimes am betting $125 per hand. When I hit the two $100,000 royals I was betting $125 a hand.

Why would you do this at 99% when you figure to have a big edge (25%) and people willing to give action on the two dice puzzle?

[Alan Mendelson]

[QUOTE=mickeycrimm;48619]

Mickey when I play video poker, I sometimes am betting $125 per hand. When I hit the two $100,000 royals I was betting $125 a hand.

Why would you do this at 99% when you figure to have a big edge (25%) and people willing to give action on the two dice puzzle?

If you are going to throw two dice simultaneously, there are 11 combinations of those two dice showing at least one 2 and there is one combination that will show 2-2.

But when you throw two dice simultaneously and after the throw is completed an observer says that at least one of the two dice has landed on two there is a 1/6 chance that both dice are showing 2s.

Does this answer your question?

[coach belly]

Why would you do this at 99% when you figure to have a big edge (25%) and people willing to give action on the two dice puzzle?

Who are the people willing to give action on the two-dice puzzle?

Are you speaking for yourself?...another Montana-only challenge?

[Rob.Singer]

[QUOTE=mickeycrimm;48619]

Mickey when I play video poker, I sometimes am betting $125 per hand. When I hit the two $100,000 royals I was betting $125 a hand.

Why would you do this at 99% when you figure to have a big edge (25%) and people willing to give action on the two dice puzzle?

Let me guess why.

Reason #1: How about ap's are known bet welchers, as witnessed on this forum time after time.

Reason #2: (and any self-proclaimed "knowledgeable gambler" should comprehend this): Alan plays $5 & $25. vp. Do you really think wasting his time playing around with a few hundred dollars betting with someone tucked away in Montana or anonymously hiding in or away from LV, can be considered a responsible act by any stretch? You saw how that anonymous "AP extraordinaire" doofus axelrod or whatever wanted to bet ME a whole $9000 on something he couldn't even clearly explain w/o ever laying out any bet parameters whatsoever. So you guys never have any intentions to make any bet real. You AP's do like to flap at the mouth though.

Someone you actually SHOULD bet with is coach however. Just be real about it and don't expect anyone to go to Montana. And if you play your cards right he might even offer to pay your travel expenses since you can't afford them.

[Rob.Singer]

Let's assume you're the so-called peeker, Eddie. You look under the cup and see a 2 but do not look at the other die. You report "at least one of the dice is a 2". You also will answer your own question that the probability of there being 2-2 is 1 in 6--not 1 in 11, because you know which of the two dice shows a 2 at the moment.

Alan, OTOH, also "knows" it's 1 in 6 because in his mind he has taken one of the dice completely out of the picture, leaving only one die. But what does a WoV armchair "AP" have to say about this? Why....1 in 11 of course! And this is only because they are assuming nobody but the peeker knows what he has seen.

Day-in/day-out the prevailing answer of 1 in 6 will be correct,

Thank you Rob.

And here's another point Alan that the mensas and 1-in-11 true believers have not yet been able to comprehend.

The "peeker" is the only one who knows what's really going on with the two dice, and after looking at them and seeing at least one 2 he actually KNOWS there's a 1-in-6 probability that both die show a 2. That's reality for you. So why not just dovetail onto the smartest guy in the room's actual knowledge, instead of turning this whole thing into a futile exercise in theory?

As stated many times throughout the threads on this problem, the so-called genius who came up with it only outsmarted himself. His presentation of the problem was incompetent, incomplete, and that huge brain he believes he has never thoroughly thought much of this through. Both answers can be construed as being correct, depending how your thought patterns go. However, 1-in-6 is BY FAR the more reasonable, responsible answer because it is the REALITY-BASED answer..

You have been right all along. I imagine if you could go over to WoV and start scraping the egg off all their "elite" faces, you could make omelets that'll feed the homeless for years to come.

[Biloxi Bill]

[QUOTE=Rob.Singer;48622]

Why would you do this at 99% when you figure to have a big edge (25%) and people willing to give action on the two dice puzzle?

Let me guess why.

Reason #1: How about ap's are known bet welchers, as witnessed on this forum time after time.

Reason #2: (and any self-proclaimed "knowledgeable gambler" should comprehend this): Alan plays $5 & $25. vp. Do you really think wasting his time playing around with a few hundred dollars betting with someone tucked away in Montana or anonymously hiding in or away from LV, can be considered a responsible act by any stretch? You saw how that anonymous "AP extraordinaire" doofus axelrod or whatever wanted to bet ME a whole $9000 on something he couldn't even clearly explain w/o ever laying out any bet parameters whatsoever. So you guys never have any intentions to make any bet real. You AP's do like to flap at the mouth though.

Someone you actually SHOULD bet with is coach however. Just be real about it and don't expect anyone to go to Montana. And if you play your cards right he might even offer to pay your travel expenses since you can't afford them.

The Coach has no money, that`s why he`s always on here arguing like a little beyatch

[arcimede$]

It's kind of humorous but the very same people who support the 1 in 6 answer just happen to be in the group that thinks you can beat negative expectation games by either varying your bet and/or using stop loss/win strategies. In other words, they are basic math deniers.

[a2a3dseddie]

It is in fact the same (in my opinion) of rolling one die after the first die shows a 2.

Instead, ask jbjb if he would accept this bet:

Set a die on the number 2 and roll a second die. If the second die also shows a 2 you will get paid $800. If the second die shows any other number you will pay him $100.

THAT would be 1/6. But it's not even close to the original question.

Alan, I asked you this earlier but you either missed or ignored it.

Let's say during a crap game, you throw the dice, one lands on 2 and the other bounces off the table. Do the dealers let you just re-roll ONE dice, add it to the 2 and resolve all the bets on the layout?

No they don't! Why?

Alan, no response?

[a2a3dseddie]

Let's assume you're the so-called peeker, Eddie. You look under the cup and see a 2 but do not look at the other die. You report "at least one of the dice is a 2". You also will answer your own question that the probability of there being 2-2 is 1 in 6--not 1 in 11, because you know which of the two dice shows a 2 at the moment.

Alan, OTOH, also "knows" it's 1 in 6 because in his mind he has taken one of the dice completely out of the picture, leaving only one die. But what does a WoV armchair "AP" have to say about this? Why....1 in 11 of course! And this is only because they are assuming nobody but the peeker knows what he has seen.

Day-in/day-out the prevailing answer of 1 in 6 will be correct,

Thank you Rob.

Did you thank Rob for this post as well, or did you ban him?

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.

However, if you take the WoV interpretation, simply telling you that one of the dice shows a 2 does not remove it from its numerical relationship with the die with the unknown number showing. Whereas rolling 2-2 is a 36-1 possibility, knowing half the outcome, ie. one of the dice is showing a 2, reduces the odds to 11-1 since it is no longer a single die event. You now have to consider all combinations of the two dice where either one of them shows a 2.

[Rob.Singer]

I'd say these guys are starting to get it. And by no means am I saying 11:1 is wrong, because it not only is what the OP meant it to be---it's the 2nd place answer. However, in this case, 2nd place is last place.

[Alan Mendelson]

I am glad you wrote this because it is another example of a lack of understanding and this lack of understanding is why you missed the answer is 1/6. Here's what you wrote and I put in bold the words that show your error:

It's kind of humorous but the very same people who support the 1 in 6 answer just happen to be in the group that thinks you can beat negative expectation games by either varying your bet and/or using stop loss/win strategies. In other words, they are basic math deniers.

Arc, Rob's system of using win/loss goals doesn't mean you can beat negative expectation games. On the contrary. The win/loss goals allow you to win and walk away with profits from negative expectation games.

I don't think Rob would claim and I certainly would never claim that you can beat a negative expectation game. But I think Rob would say and I do say, you can win at negative expectation games if you are smart about what you do with money management.

Now would you please reconsider the question asked keeping in mind that one of the two dice has been identified as a "2" and see if you can understand why the answer cannot be 1/11 when only six faces remain to be considered?

[Alan Mendelson]

I'd say these guys are starting to get it. And by no means am I saying 11:1 is wrong, because it not only is what the OP meant it to be---it's the 2nd place answer. However, in this case, 2nd place is last place.

1/11 is the correct answer... to a different set of circumstances. It's all in the understanding of the English language.

[Alan Mendelson]

Let's say during a crap game, you throw the dice, one lands on 2 and the other bounces off the table. Do the dealers let you just re-roll ONE dice, add it to the 2 and resolve all the bets on the layout?

No they don't! Why?

Besides being against the rules of the game, allowing one die to remain on the table and then throwing a second die would open the house to the possibility of losing more, and at the same time is opens the possibility that the players would lose more.

For example: Two dice are thrown and the die on the table shows a 6. If the second die were "rethrown" it would be impossible for the total to be any number less than 7. Is that fair to the players who have money on any number of 6 or under?

If the die on the table is a 2, it would be impossible for the total to be 2 after the next throw.
If the die on the table is a 3, it would be impossible for the total to be 3 or 2 after the next throw.
If the die on the table is a 4, it would be impossible for the total to be 4, 3 or 2 after the next throw.

That's why the dice need to be thrown and considered at the same time.

[a2a3dseddie]

Let's say during a crap game, you throw the dice, one lands on 2 and the other bounces off the table. Do the dealers let you just re-roll ONE dice, add it to the 2 and resolve all the bets on the layout?

No they don't! Why?

Besides being against the rules of the game, allowing one die to remain on the table and then throwing a second die would open the house to the possibility of losing more, and at the same time is opens the possibility that the players would lose more.

For example: Two dice are thrown and the die on the table shows a 6. If the second die were "rethrown" it would be impossible for the total to be any number less than 7. Is that fair to the players who have money on any number of 6 or under?

If the die on the table is a 2, it would be impossible for the total to be 2 after the next throw.
If the die on the table is a 3, it would be impossible for the total to be 3 or 2 after the next throw.
If the die on the table is a 4, it would be impossible for the total to be 4, 3 or 2 after the next throw.

That's why the dice need to be thrown and considered at the same time.

Thanks for your response Alan.

So we are in agreement that certain combinations would be impossible if you fix one specific die and just roll the other. That's a good starting point!

Do you see now why your prior opinion

It is in fact the same (in my opinion) of rolling one die after the first die shows a 2.

Is NOT the same as the original question?

[Alan Mendelson]

I am not going to argue with you anymore.

You can't show me that after rolling two dice, with one coming to rest on a 2, that there can possibly be 11 combinations. As soon as we know that one die has landed on a 2 only six other faces remain to be considered.

Ive told you to take two physical dice. Roll them yourself. When you have at least one of the two dice landing on a two ask yourself how many faces remain that would show 2-2? There are only six. Only six. Only six.

[a2a3dseddie]

You can't show me that after rolling two dice, with one coming to rest on a 2, that there can possibly be 11 combinations. As soon as we know that one die has landed on a 2 only six other faces remain to be considered.

Ive told you to take two physical dice. Roll them yourself. When you have at least one of the two dice landing on a two ask yourself how many faces remain that would show 2-2? There are only six. Only six. Only six.

You have 1 of 11 possible combinations under the cup. The specific combination of 2 2 is the one we're interested in.

Here you are advising coach belly AGAINST accepting a bet you originally posted.

If your so confident, take the 8:1 bet for $100 per roll. Win $800 when 2-2 shows and lose $100 when 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5 or 2-6 shows. Guarantee you'll go broke.

I'll take this bet for one roll. I think money well spent if I lose. How many rolls can I bet on?

Coach, you would go broke with this.

When rolling two dice simultaneously, 2-2 shows up 1/36 times.
There are 11 combinations showing at least one 2, and only one combination that shows 2-2. So you are facing 10 losing decisions for each winning decision.

This is a new bet and quite frankly I like it.

Let me answer your questions specifically and I am sure this will be the understanding:

1. Two dice are in a cup or other device, shaken and in the cup placed on the table.
2. A witness will peek. If a 2 is shown the bet is on.
3. If a 2 is not shown, there is no betting.
4. In both cases, the cup will be removed and the dice can be viewed. This will prevent the original dice from showing 2-2 and the witness lying.
5. With one deuce the bet is on (#2) and if there is not a second bet the "player" will lose their bet.
6. With one deuce the bet is on (#2) and if there is a second deuce the "bank" will pay either 9-to-1 or 9-for-1 (the Wiz doesn't care.)

My own personal thought: I can't imagine why the Wizard agreed to this? There is a 1/6 chance that when one die shows a 2 that the other will also be a 2 yet he is willing to pay 9-for-1 or 9-to-1.

[mickeycrimm]

[QUOTE=Rob.Singer;48622]

Why would you do this at 99% when you figure to have a big edge (25%) and people willing to give action on the two dice puzzle?

Let me guess why.

Reason #1: How about ap's are known bet welchers, as witnessed on this forum time after time.

Reason #2: (and any self-proclaimed "knowledgeable gambler" should comprehend this): Alan plays $5 & $25. vp. Do you really think wasting his time playing around with a few hundred dollars betting with someone tucked away in Montana or anonymously hiding in or away from LV, can be considered a responsible act by any stretch? You saw how that anonymous "AP extraordinaire" doofus axelrod or whatever wanted to bet ME a whole $9000 on something he couldn't even clearly explain w/o ever laying out any bet parameters whatsoever. So you guys never have any intentions to make any bet real. You AP's do like to flap at the mouth though.

Someone you actually SHOULD bet with is coach however. Just be real about it and don't expect anyone to go to Montana. And if you play your cards right he might even offer to pay your travel expenses since you can't afford them.

Rob, give us the names of those who welshed bets. Only one case I know of on WoV and he was banned for it.

Golly, Rob, how about the bet is posted before the dice are rolled? Duh?

Rob, you've been playing video poker for 20 years or more and Alan has probably been playing it that long too. Alan has two $100,000 royals for that period. That screams that he hasn't played much at the $25 level. And how many royals do you have, Rob, at that level? None? That says it all right there, buddy. You haven't played much at that level either. You just talk a good game.