First of all, any no. from 1-6 can be shown because no one knows what number is on the peaked-at die. We'll accept that it's a 2 so as not to get the WoVers whining any more.
There is now a 1 in 6 chance that the other die has a 2. Anyone who claims the other die's chances are 1 in 11 is smoking bad weed.
Where'd the 9-1 come from?
Rob, once again I posted on the WOV site:
I will repeat: Does anyone want to bank THIS BET:
A person puts two dices in a cup, shake and slam the cup on the table.
A second person peeks under the cup and truthfully announces if there is at least one deuce showing or not (he will later lift the cup and show to all he wasn't lying).
If "at least one deuce" is announced, the 1/6-ers will wager 1 unit on the premise that there are two deuces under the cup( a one in six probability according to them). If they're right, they get 9 units back. If they're wrong, they lose the 1 unit wagered.
Repeat.
The 9 to 1 came from Rawtuff. My "guess" is he thought that was a fair, or middle-number, between the two sides.
And just a moment ago "RS" said he would bank. See his post copied here and my response:
Quote: RS
Like I already said, yes. And to avoid confusion, that's 9-for-1 not 9-to-1.
Please post where and when so that I can provide the details on my forum -- and to the members on this forum. And please include what size bets you will accept.
And here is the link:
http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/quest...32/#post450084
Erm No. BOTH dice are peeked at. We agreed that several hundred posts ago, before you rode to Alan's rescue.... But a bit after you misquoted the original question on your comments page.Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Last edited by OnceDear; 04-21-2015 at 04:35 PM.
OnceDear the position of everyone who believes the answer is 1/6 (and I think I can speak for them all) is that we just need to know what one die shows.
Now, over on the WOV site you said that the "new bet" outlined above still offers an advantage to the banker. Are you willing to bank that bet as written by Rawtuff??
Regarding your quote from Rob, I think you took that out of context and not related to the original debate. I think Rob is now talking about the new bet offer.
Just so everyone knows, I consulted with Jesus Christ on this. He too is a simple man, and understands the question to be what are the chances the other die is a 2. As in, taking the known 2 out of the equation right then and there. You know, the simple way.
Of course, there's two problems with this: first, WoVers want it to be all about knowing 1/2 the answer without actually identifying which die HAS that info, just so they can throw the monkey wrench into the problem solving. Then, of course, the mensas don't believe in Jesus Christ, because being "men of pure science" they haven't actually ever met him. But they do believe in the collection of other freaks over there, because as anonymous posters, they "said so".
So if we have two peekers, Your peeker and the wizards peeker, and your peeker only looks at one die, and he doesn't say 'At Least one of the dice is a deuce, do you want the bet to be off? Or do you still want the bet to be on if the wizard's peeker says 'at least one of the dice is a deuce'?Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It makes a hell of a difference. There would be a lot more action and a lot less pushes if you take the action when the wizard's peeker looked. Totally different odds would apply and we can guess that the odds would be 1/6 on your subset of the bets and 1/11 in the full set of the wizards bets. Or do you assert (again) that it makes no difference?
Last edited by OnceDear; 04-21-2015 at 04:49 PM.
I'm willing to bank this bet (rawtuff on WOV posted and I quoted on page 31). I'd have a max (idk yet). Let me know if you're interested in wagering $100's...or $1,000's and I'll (most likely) be able to get the money together.
Once dear, betting.& challenges with your crowd over there does not have a credible history. If they get backed into the corner that shocks them into realizing that they actually HAVE to make the bet with real cash even by offering go put the escrow right into the wizard's hands for safe keeping, the geniuses then ask their opponents to pay for their travel and other expenses. I however, would trust ANYTHING evenbob says about this.Originally Posted by OnceDear
We don't really support EvenBob....he's not one of our own. He just trolls the forum.
Let me just make this clear. Rawtuff wrote on the Wizard's forum a "bet" which I think follows the original question that evoked two answers: 1/6 or 1/11. This bet would, in my opinion, monetize the disagreement. I am asking if there are any "takers" meaning who wants to take the bet and who wants to bank the bet. If someone wants to bank the bet, I want them to clearly state where and when and what limits. I don't care if you want to bet dollars or donuts or even pennies -- the amount is between you and the other participants. I just want the "bet" clearly defined here following Rawtuff's proposal.
Once again, here is Rawtuff's proposal:
A person puts two dices in a cup, shake and slam the cup on the table.
A second person peeks under the cup and truthfully announces if there is at least one deuce showing or not (he will later lift the cup and show to all he wasn't lying).
If "at least one deuce" is announced, the 1/6-ers will wager 1 unit on the premise that there are two deuces under the cup (a one in six probability according to them). If they're right, they get 9 units back. If they're wrong, they lose the 1 unit wagered.
Repeat.
Actually, I worry that EvenBob is off his game. He's not contributed to this trollfest at all. I reckon he's keeping his powder dry. Wise old Troll. When he does bob in he will milk this for 5,000 posts minimum $Originally Posted by RS__)
Hey Alan, could you answer my last question please for the elimination of doubt. Cheers.
Wish I had some dough but I've been hit hard by the Obama depression. All in on 1 in 11. Singers history on bets not withstanding, this bet will never happen. Singer knows the real answer. He's just stroking Allan for the time being
Alan needs Singer.
Agreed.Originally Posted by quahaug
Would you like a sidebet Q that Rob and Alan blame 'The wizards crowd' for putting obstacles in the way?
We already know that "It's a push if 'At least one dice is a deuce' is not declared" is a whole different ballgame to "The bet is on if 'At least one dice is a deuce' Is declared."
And actually it is a whole different ballgame unless the bettor is forced to bet EVERY TIME BOTH DICE ARE EXAMINED and at EVERY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY 'At least one dice is a deuce' is declared'
By insisting on only betting when only one of the dice is examined, Alan skews the odds to the 1/6 that they truly are. We always knew that.
Heck It's even been agreed a zillion times that the odds are 1/6 if only one die is peeked at.
Last edited by OnceDear; 04-21-2015 at 05:39 PM.
Please post it again.Originally Posted by OnceDear
At this point I am asking all of you to stop the personal attacks and naming people who do not participate here.
For the sake of clarity I would like to discuss the "Rawtuff bet" which I think monetizes the original question and dispute.
Sure thing Alan.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So if we have two peekers, Your peeker and the wizards peeker, and your peeker only looks at one die (because it really doesnt matter), and he doesn't say 'At Least one of the dice is a deuce, do you want the bet to be off? Or do you still want the bet to be on if the wizard's peeker says 'at least one of the dice is a deuce'?
It makes a hell of a difference. There would be a lot more action and a lot less pushes if you take the action when the wizard's peeker looked. Totally different odds would apply and we can guess that the odds would be 1/6 on your subset of the bets and 1/11 in the full set of the wizards bets. Or do you assert (again) that it makes no difference?
OnceDear I would like to follow Rawtuff's bet because the cup will be lifted to show that there wasn't a lie. You only need one person to do this and I don't think it matters who that person is. If the Wizard wants to shake up the dice in the cup and slam the cup down and peek himself it would be fine with me and it should be fine with everyone because after the bets are made the cup will be removed showing the dice. Don't you agree?
This is why I asked on the WOV forum if anyone would bank Rawtuff's bet, and to spell out exactly the conditions, details, etc.
I am not discussing any bet besides Rawtuff's bet. As I said, I think Rawtuff's bet monetizes the original question.
Allen I think you are being clear. I don't know where the oncedear obfuscation comes from. Alan stated that at least ONE die is a two. You would have to look at both to say at least one die is a two. I think?
I briefly ducked into WoV to see what was up. Folks, it sounds like a collection of gambling wannabes, probably young gambling wannabes, who have some math backgrounds but likely not three doctorates between them. They seem too pretentious to be actual scholars, so I wouldn't take them too seriously. They're like a friendly math club. And probably young (did I say that?).
My humble opinion is that they couldn't make a profit in LV with Dillinger's schlong and Steve Wynn's bankroll. They're just looking to cherry pick some poor fellow gamblers and spit cider in their ear (and they may be too young to get the reference).
Just give them a wide berth and don't take them too seriously. Cider's great if you drink it.
Evenbob is awesome. You can just picture him picking his toes as he posts his special little paragraphs of wisdom.
I'm not understanding this challenge, seeing that multiple personalities keep inputting different parameters. If the peeker sees "at least one 2" will that die be eliminated from under the cup? If so and with those quoted payouts, I'm in for whatever amount wizard wants to put up.
If the die with a 2 is not identified or eliminated, ie., if it remains "random" then the 9-1 odds are something only a big phony storeteller like mickeycrimm would take.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote