How do you interpret the "dice problem"?

[OneHitWonder]

Yea...and the peeker didn’t say that we must not wait for a two. Nor did he say that he was randomly calling out dice X.

Doesn't have to then, doing so would make no difference.

If this exercise is about a specific number, and the number 2, we must know in advance. We must be able to verify what's happening along the way. The "peeker" can't make it up as he/she goes along, let alone after each roll.

The Wizard isn't allowed even fair money odds on a 1/11 chance for a 1/6 chance outcome. Ie, he can't just claim any number from each roll was what he was waiting for.

Anyone see a pattern here in the 1/11 chance answer people? This is how the Wizard seems to define "a good bet". The reason that he always seems to take the worst of it from people who not only passed the Mensa test, but who earned near genius rankings by it.

If there is a number from the start, it's 1/6 chance a 2. And, it's less than 1/3 chance of some 2 on the first roll. Furthermore, a 1/6 chance that the "peeker" awaits that number - assuming that the "peeker" was even waiting on a specific number. At least a 100 to 1 against your 1/11 scenario based on the odds alone. However, we still require the announcement of the number for the 1/11 chance answer to be verified, ie, hold up under any sort of scrutiny.

What the heck sort of bet is Alan supposed to make, and under such constant hounding and duress? Certainly not at the Wizard's level of authority.

With virtually everyone playing "follow the leader" over there, I see the reason now that no one pointed any of this out over there from the start of the thread. Are you the Wizard? It's very hard to tell with all the silly evasiveness in specific, and plain silliness in general. For a second there, I thought I was back reading the Wizard's forum. Maybe you should "get the heck out of here" like the other Wizlings? No one's going to truck such nonsense and shiftiness here.

You must make an assumption.

Understand yet? Guessers are losers.

The number was agreed on in advance with the Alan/Wizard Lunch Bet thing. The ambiguity was cleared up—only rolls with at least one deuce were looked at.

You still don't get it. Any 1/11 chance answer is made up of the 1/6 chance answer. The latter is the basic and, or, and "at least", of this.

Correct, one deuce isn’t “one or more deuces” or “one deuce or two deuces”. But at least one deuce IS “one or more deuces” or “one deuce or two deuces”.

You still don't get this either. The condition must read "a roll which is an element of those in which at least one is a 2"; not "a roll which is at least one 2 (or more)".

Wake up!