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

[kewl]

[QUOTE=Rob.Singer;27567]

What is YOUR interpretation of this, exactly:

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?

Obviously, the answer is 1in36. You see, WoVers thrive on spoofing and arguing ad nauseum. And your egos are thru the roof. Well, now you have to realize that while all you geniuses were busy solving mathematical problems and theorizing about this and that, the rest of the world was busy experiencing reality. So the answer to your question is I took the question in its purest of forms, unaffected by any of the aforementioned assumptions simply because none of those assumptions were mentioned in the question.

See how it is when you get held to the fire? Now accept my vp bet up here in Tahoe this weekend, or go back to WoV and cut him another check.

So you went from "a 100% it is 1/6" to "Obviously, the answer is 1in36." for one and the same question. Hmmm..interesting

You are claiming the question can be interpreted in multiple ways. Hmmmm.. even more interesting.

Care to elaborate on the two scenario which lead to respectively 1/6 and 1/36? But be sure to follow the OQ word for word.

It is fascinating.
I, personally can come up with two scenarios - 1/11 and 1/6 (and this one needs the OQ taken to philosophical limits) , but never have I come to 1/36.

[Alan Mendelson]

NO Rob, I don't see anything but someone who either can't make up his mind or deliberately changes his position to confuse, deter, attack, alter, mislead and ultimately avoid. I should have known as soon as you said you wanted to link a video poker bet to the dice bet.

[redietz]

A ploppie is a bad blackjack player, but there's a self-congratulatory aspect to using it, like when people use "squares" as a sports betting term to demonstrate they get the jargon and that they ain't one.

Nobody asked, but I hate jargon. Probably has something to do with trying to communicate clearly to a general audience as opposed to tagging oneself as belonging to a knowledgeable clique.

[Rob.Singer]

[QUOTE=kewl;27573]

So you went from "a 100% it is 1/6" to "Obviously, the answer is 1in36." for one and the same question. Hmmm..interesting

You are claiming the question can be interpreted in multiple ways. Hmmmm.. even more interesting.

Care to elaborate on the two scenario which lead to respectively 1/6 and 1/36? But be sure to follow the OQ word for word.

It is fascinating.
I, personally can come up with two scenarios - 1/11 and 1/6 (and this one needs the OQ taken to philosophical limits) , but never have I come to 1/36.

I was doing something called MOCKING YOU, which us well known to the real world and despised in the world of theorists.

Wise up.

[Rob.Singer]

NO Rob, I don't see anything but someone who either can't make up his mind or deliberately changes his position to confuse, deter, attack, alter, mislead and ultimately avoid. I should have known as soon as you said you wanted to link a video poker bet to the dice bet.

You seem upset, which isn't becoming of you. First you can't follow what I've been saying all along, then you can't understand the simple table of dice results arci put up. I haven't altered anywhere and I had no reason to mislead, because this dice stuff does not mean anything to me beyond a passing interest. One point you're right about though--I did take the opportunity to ridicule the childish WoVers along with get a few shots in at their revered leader for having his sacred "AP skills" fail him to the point of humiliation & embarrassment. Guess he made a lot of those "good bets" along the way... And I did try to get some of their biggest mouths to bet me on my vp play, which was a long shot because most of them are like Face---broke.

However, I am sorry if you think you were mislead. I may have not worded things properly along the way, I don't know because I thought I did. But what I interpret shouldn't much matter, esp. when it comes to dice, which is your specialty.

Do you see how the threads heated up right after I wrote about the Monty Hall problem? Those guys read your sites more than you think.

[Rob.Singer]

A ploppie is a bad blackjack player, but there's a self-congratulatory aspect to using it, like when people use "squares" as a sports betting term to demonstrate they get the jargon and that they ain't one.

Nobody asked, but I hate jargon. Probably has something to do with trying to communicate clearly to a general audience as opposed to tagging oneself as belonging to a knowledgeable clique.

You've been right about everything that went on here and that goes on at the "math club" all along. Now they'll add you to their list of people they can call names and insult, since we're not there to make them look stupid for doing so. "Safety of the Nerds"

[kewl]

[QUOTE=Rob.Singer;27577]

I was doing something called MOCKING YOU, which us well known to the real world and despised in the world of theorists.

Wise up.

Mhm, but I'm not a theorist. I'm just a simple guy with a bit of common sense in him.

I know people like you, in fact one of my good friends is just like you (he is in prison now).
They are good and fun people to share a drink with them , but when it comes to trust, or asking them what the time is - no chance, they will lie to you just because they are build that way - unable to speak the truth.

I guess that's it from me here - in any event, do know for future reference, when you roll a pair of dice and at least one of them comes at a predetermined value, for example a two, then the odds for the other die to be of the same value is 1/11, not 1/6.

In order for the odds to be 1/6 you need to specify the rules as if you would ask the question: "what are the odds of the second die to be of the same value as the first one each roll, no matter of the outcome of any of the dice". I.e. you roll the two dices and whatever the outcome is, you pick one of the dices(at random) and ask "what are the odds that the other die is showing the same value"? Then the answer will be - 1/6.

Need to think through that more carefully then you would actually , so it might go over your head , but still, at least I tried.

All the best.

[Alan Mendelson]

I may have not worded things properly along the way, I don't know because I thought I did.

So... you might not have worded things properly? Did you word things properly when discussing your special plays? Did you word things properly when discussing win goals and loss limits? Did you word things properly when discussing your various "systems" for video poker?

When someone says they may have not worded things properly it tells me not to believe what they say.

And you were warned: this forum is not for you to criticize, attack or mock anyone. Final warning.

[Rob.Singer]

I don't have any "friends" in prison. In "theory" that says a lot about you, don't you think?

Alan, when you get frustrated at yourself for being unable to either understand what people are trying to SHOW & TELL you about the dice odds over & over again, or when you get disturbed for not following what I've been saying about the problem all along--and probably because you so foolishly went all in with the clowns on WoV--it truly does bring out the worst in you, and I can see why your life is littered with divorces. Badmouthing me both here and on the other forum just because I understand something different than you as well as clearly stating my position from the start thru to the finish, which you for some reason are unable to comprehend either, only bothers me to the extent that you would think I'd purposely mislead you on an issue I really have no dog in the hunt on.

You let it get out of hand with your racing between forums trying to set up betting of all things, even after I and others here told you what we thought if such a bet. But for some reason, you eliminated what I've been saying about the two interpretations I've long discussed, and you went full speed ahead thinking you were right (which I hope by now you understand you are not) and that I & regnis was right there with you. Yet when I said if they insist on wizard's interpretation that it was a bad bet, you don't like it and start the accusations flying.

I don't mind those guys badmouthing me--jealous people and haters have been doing that for years, and you see how they're STILL trying to reach out at my throat even in the midst of my absence. What I'm disappointed at is how you've handled--or mishandled--this with respect to me....someone who certainly enjoyed the opportunity to poke fun at those morons, but who also expected more from you overall here.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, you're banned again. I've warned you too many times. And now a personal attack on me, mentioning divorces. Buh-bye!!!

[quahaug]

Rob has gotten even more incoherent since his last banning. I have no idea what he's been talking about. I'm surprised redietz threw in with him the way he did. Kind of creepy.

[redietz]

I noticed quahaug wrote "threw in with him" as opposed to something else. That's probably because there isn't a post where I actually could be quoted as agreeing with Rob regarding the dice question. There's a reason for that -- and it's why I kept referencing the cider quote from Guys and Dolls. This dice question wasn't just discovered by the WoV forum members. The outcome, like the cider, was already in the cards.

The initial post by OnceDear was narcissist psycho, and some of the follow-up posts by the WoVers were obnoxious. Maybe not as obnoxious as Rob when's he's really trying, but pretty bad.

Here's my point. I still maintain most people would reach an incorrect conclusion after reading the original presentation. Yet I also maintain that if you walk most people through the actual scenario and the math, most people would get it. So that means the original presentation was written to be clever, to separate an audience into those who get it and those who don't. I'm not a fan of that kind of thing.

[Count Room]

Alan: How many times have you banned Rob since your forum's inception? I've lost track and I misplaced my tally counter.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan: How many times have you banned Rob since your forum's inception? I've lost track and I misplaced my tally counter.

I've also lost count. It's a love-hate relationship, you know. Besides, he still owes me lunch.

Rob still has valuable information to share but I just can't trust him to behave himself in a forum. When he admitted to using this forum for mocking the WOV visitors that was it for me... again.

[Count Room]

I've also lost count. It's a love-hate relationship, you know. Besides, he still owes me lunch.

Rob still has valuable information to share but I just can't trust him to behave himself in a forum. When he admitted to using this forum for mocking the WOV visitors that was it for me... again.

I'm almost certain there will be another re-instatement of Rob sometime soon. Why not make it interesting? Bring him back on, but the next time you ban him he owes you $500 (as a fine for emotional distress). Escalate it by $500 increments each go-around, so that the next banning is $1000, then $1,500, etc. Fine must be payable BEFORE re-instatement.

The side bonus of this will be paying for the operation of this website!

[Alan Mendelson]

This was fun:

[RS__]

This was fun:

I don't follow. ?

[quahaug]

Awesome video Alan!

[Alan Mendelson]

RS___ what I did out of boredom was put two Caesars dice in a cup, shook, slammed them down on table, and four out of ten times when "at least one 2 showed" it was 2-2. To "peek" I used a plastic drinking cup. Of course, my "experiment" is not scientifically significant but it was fun. In the video you are looking at the FIRST "roll." By the way, these are new dice. I was given a stick of new dice some years ago.

I wonder if this will prompt some discussion on WOV that the dice are loaded?

[arcimede$]

Alan, maybe you accidentally "set" the dice.

You'll probably need a couple hundred rolls to get a good statistical result.