It was two years ago today...

[coach belly]

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?

[Alan Mendelson]

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.

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.

Update: I just rolled a single die ten times: I got two 2s for a win of $1600. I got other numbers on the 8 other rolls for a loss of $800. Net win: $800.

[coach belly]

Coach, you would go broke with this.

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.

Update: I just rolled a single die ten times: I got two 2s for a win of $1600. I got other numbers on the 8 other rolls for a loss of $800. Net win: $800.

I won't go broke. I'm gonna hit and run...quit while ahead.

Are you trying to scare jbjb away from my bet with your bogus results?

[Alan Mendelson]

Coach I will be there to record the betting and rolls of the dice.

[coach belly]

Coach I will be there to record the betting and rolls of the dice.

I was counting on that.

[RS__]

My interpretation is simply this:

A peeker looks and sees at least one die is a 2. That die will not change. It will always be a 2.

Now you tell me: if one die is always a two, and there are two dice, what are the odds that the other die is also showing a 2? Is it still 1/11 for a six-sided die?

LOL

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't think you realize that, though.

I'm not sure what's so funny. If you mean you set one die to a '2', and roll the other one, then it's pretty obvious there's a 1/6 chance it lands on '2'. Why would you even ask that question?

[RS__]

We fucking went through this before. Of course the peeker has to see a 2 in order to make the statement "at least one die is a two."

You made this ridiculous comment the first time responding to regnis who discussed seeing a 2.

Then you tried to twist your words.

Quit it. You pulled this same shit in your battles with Singer over the years and I'm not going to fall for it.

Fuck off.

And you cheated on your taxes.

Are you fucking insane? He only has to see ONE die to make the statement "at least one die is a two." You don't have to see both dice. And in the question it is stated that the "peeker" truthfully says one die is a 2.

So what the fuck is your problem?

You guys are having a real problem with reality, aren't you?

There are only two dice. You can't use the same die twice to figure the answer to the question.

If I tell you that at least one of the two dice is showing a 2, then the answer must be with the remaining die.

It doesn't matter which of the two dice we say is showing a two. Try to get this to sink in: It doesn't matter which of the two dice we say is showing a two.

Why (please tell me) do you think it matters with a two dice problem?

If we have two dice and one of them is known to show a 2, then only one die remains. (Hint: 2-1=1) And on that remaining die (it doesn't matter which one it is) there are only 6 faces. Of those six faces, only one face is a 2.

What the fuck is the difference which die it is in a two fucking dice problem?

This is not a question about rolling dice and seeing results.

This is a simple question: You have two dice one of which is a 2. What are the odds that the other die is also showing a two.

You can moan and groan all you want about conditional bullshit and look at graphs all you want showing the number of dice combinations displaying a 2...

But the simple fucking answer is 1/6.

Now fuck off.

Name calling and swearing etc. a clear sign of ignorance. Just sayin.

+1

[Alan Mendelson]

My interpretation is simply this:

A peeker looks and sees at least one die is a 2. That die will not change. It will always be a 2.

Now you tell me: if one die is always a two, and there are two dice, what are the odds that the other die is also showing a 2? Is it still 1/11 for a six-sided die?

LOL

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't think you realize that, though.

I'm not sure what's so funny. If you mean you set one die to a '2', and roll the other one, then it's pretty obvious there's a 1/6 chance it lands on '2'. Why would you even ask that question?

So there is no misunderstanding: when two dice are rolled and you are told that one die has landed on the 2, there is a 1/6 chance that the other die is also a 2.

When you roll two dice, there are 11 combinations on those two dice that include a 2, and one of those 11 combinations is 2-2. That's 1/11.

Do you realize what the difference is? The difference is when you consider TWO dice or you consider only ONE die. When someone tells you that one die has landed on a 2, then there are only six possibilities to consider for the second die.

That's what Ive been telling you for two years. It's what regnis has been telling you. And redietz even acknowledges the difference in the two situations because as he put it, telling someone that a 2 has been rolled is sequential and not simultaneous.

Frankly, as I've said all along, it's a matter of reading comprehension and understanding the words of the problem. Your math isn't wrong, but you are applying the math incorrectly.

[mickeycrimm]

Coach I will be there to record the betting and rolls of the dice.

Alan's true nature is starting to manifest itself. Alan, you were chosen to receive arci and Singer's tax returns because of your "impeccable integrity." You've now shot that all to hell with your attack on arci over his tax returns. You gave everyone your word that you would not disclose any information other than the gambling win/loss. If you seen something to cause you to think he may have cheated his taxes, this is information you never should have divulged here. We now know that you ABSOLUTELY CAN'T BE TRUSTED. Furthermore, you never attacked Singer in such a way over his taxes when he openly admitted never paying any.

If you will screw arci like this then you will screw any of us on anything. I wonder how many people you screwed as a journalist. Integrity, my ass. You have none.

PS: You never received your buttboy Singer's tax returns, did you?

[mickeycrimm]

This is a an excellent question to debate here, except Rob, per the usual, jumping in and flaming the thread with his childish outbursts.

I made this comment early on in this thread. Now Alan is flaming the thread with childish outbursts. Singer and Mendelson are two peas in a pod.

[redietz]

I asked this before and no one gave a response:

Had neither of the dice been a 2, what would the peeker have done? Would he have said "At least one of the dice is a 1" (or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6)? Or would he have said nothing and rolled again and again, until at least one of the dice is a 2?

This is probably the most integral part to answering the question.

No kidding.

[coach belly]

Wow...this is a strange reaction. Why is the wormm so nervous about Alan's involvement?

BTW...when I read "record" I took it to mean capture on video...you can do that, right Alan?

Coach I will be there to record the betting and rolls of the dice.

Alan's true nature is starting to manifest itself. Alan, you were chosen to receive arci and Singer's tax returns because of your "impeccable integrity." You've now shot that all to hell with your attack on arci over his tax returns. You gave everyone your word that you would not disclose any information other than the gambling win/loss. If you seen something to cause you to think he may have cheated his taxes, this is information you never should have divulged here. We now know that you ABSOLUTELY CAN'T BE TRUSTED. Furthermore, you never attacked Singer in such a way over his taxes when he openly admitted never paying any.

If you will screw arci like this then you will screw any of us on anything. I wonder how many people you screwed as a journalist. Integrity, my ass. You have none.

[redietz]

Why didn't you answer my question, Alan. Instead you more or less admitted you know you are wrong by swearing. If he sees only one die and it is a 6, he cannot KNOW whether the other die is a 2. Therefore, he can not "truthfully" say whether or not one die is a 2. He HAS to see both die to "truthfully" answer the question.

Face-palm.

We fucking went through this before. Of course the peeker has to see a 2 in order to make the statement "at least one die is a two."

You made this ridiculous comment the first time responding to regnis who discussed seeing a 2.

Then you tried to twist your words.

Quit it. You pulled this same shit in your battles with Singer over the years and I'm not going to fall for it.

Fuck off.

And you cheated on your taxes.

No one is twisting words. You are simply denying the obvious fact that the peeker has to see both die making Regnis statement nonsense and showing you will say anything to protect your ego.

Now you are bringing up my taxes which you obviously don't understand very well either (is anyone surprised?)? So, I guess we can add a complete lack of integrity to your growing list of faults.

So, once again .... How can the peeker answer the question "truthfully" if he only sees one die? If you contnue to avoid the question that is just as good as admitting he can't answer truthfully and therefore looking at one die is NOT an option.

Now, quit your incessant whining and just go away. Isn't that your usual mode of operation?

Why does the peeker need to see both dice? That is not explicitly stated.

[a2a3dseddie]

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?

Does the original question and scenario sound more like

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.

or

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.

?

The original question asks:

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

There is a subtle difference between the original question and "If one dice is a 2 what is probability the other dice is a 2?"

The original question is asking for the probability of specific combination of a roll of 2 dice where we know what the value of 1 of the dice. Since we don't know which dice has landed on the 2, we need to consider all combinations that satisfy the peeker's only information given to us:

"At least one of the dice is a 2."

"There are 11 combinations showing at least one 2, and only one combination that shows 2-2"

So, while:

"when two dice are rolled and you are told that one die has landed on the 2, there is a 1/6 chance that the other die is also a 2."

Is true if we know which dice is a 2, that's not what was asked.

There is always a 1/6 chance any number could appear on a die.

But the original question is asking for a specific combination of 2 2.

[jbjb]

These 1 in 6 fools need to go back to high school and it shows a college degree is worthless.

"At least one die" is NOT the same as "a certain die."

[Alan Mendelson]

You guys keep making this ridiculous statement:

Since we don't know which dice has landed on the 2, we need to consider all combinations

If you have two dice, and you know one die is a 2, how many possible combinations could there be? There are only two dice. One is a 2.

It doesn't matter which of the two dice is showing the 2.

Maybe on a chart showing the combinations of dice it matters, but when you are dealing with two physical dice it doesn't matter which is showing a two.

Take your minds off your charts and graphs and put two dice in front of you. Set one of the dice as a 2. What's the answer to the problem? It's one out of six.

Now, set the other die to a 2. What's the answer now? It's still 1/6.

Set both dice to a 2. What's the answer now? It's still 1/6.

We are told one of the two dice is a 2. That means ignore your charts and graphs showing all the 11 combinations with a 2. Ignore them. Put them aside. They don't count anymore. If you don't believe me ask regnis. Ask your mailman. Ask your six year old kid.

Now, regarding Arc. He made claims here about all his winnings and when he submitted his tax returns to prove his winnings the only thing he declared were a couple of $4,000 royals. He admitted here on the forum that he did not include his non W2G wins. He admitted it, mickey.

Arc, there is no requirement to see both dice. Stop your argument.

[Alan Mendelson]

These 1 in 6 fools need to go back to high school and it shows a college degree is worthless.

"At least one die" is NOT the same as "a certain die."

Okay so if I am a fool, what's the different in a two dice problem? Educate us oh great wise one. And also explain what you meant by your question with your pile of six spades and your pile of six hearts.

[jbjb]

Simply enough, when two dice are rolled SIMULTANEOUSLY and AT LEAST ONE IS A 2, the other will be a 2, wait for it..... 1 in 11. When you SET A DIE TO 2 and roll a SINGLE DIE, "that" die will be a 2, wait for it.....1 in 6 times.

[Alan Mendelson]

Simply enough, when two dice are rolled SIMULTANEOUSLY and AT LEAST ONE IS A 2, the other will be a 2, wait for it..... 1 in 11. When you SET A DIE TO 2 and roll a SINGLE DIE, "that" die will be a 2, wait for it.....1 in 6 times.

Okay. And when you are told that ONE of the dice is a 2, what are the odds that the second die is also a 2? Are you telling me that after you know that one die is a two, that the chances for the second die to also be a two are 1/11??? How can that be when the second die only has six sides?

[quahaug]

This thread may go down in history as the dumbest of all time. Alan must have been in a mood to start an argument. Maybe it it could be studied by a group of sociologists/psychiatrists, it would keep them busy for years.