Let me return to the wager: I said no. And the reason why I said no is that I do not make bets against individuals. Yes, I play in casinos -- but my parents taught me not to make bets against individuals, friends, relatives, co-workers, etc. because they can lead to bad feelings.

I did, however,agree to bet the Wizard lunch of up to $50. I did try to meet the Wizard to have this bet a couple of weeks ago but I got into Vegas too late to hook up with Mike and I had to leave in the morning for a meeting with a client and then the drive back to LA. I am more than happy to have the meeting again and the lunch wager.

Now, there were some others who said they wanted to make more substantial bets with the Wizard, but they dropped out for whatever reason.

The bet I have with the Wizard calls for a limited number of dice rolls and frankly I don't expect to win because of the way the bet is structured -- but it doesn't matter I think it will be fun to have lunch with Mike.

But frankly the bet is a separate issue. What's more important is the truth about the actual question and the actual solution. You 1/11ers have corrupted the question and manipulated the information to come up with your answer. Sorry -- just gotta tell it like it is.

I asked everyone to do a video explaining your methodology and the videos PROVE your methodology corrupted the question. This should not have been treated as a question of probability -- but only as a simple math problem: You have one die showing a 2 was fact number one, and you have a second die with six sides which was fact number 2. You only had six sides to choose from -- and not eleven. As soon as you turned that die showing a 2 to expose five more faces you corrupted the question. Shame on you.