odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 274
  • Posts: 7188
February 28th, 2011 at 12:57:08 PM permalink
"Colin Firth is just not going to lose".Verily the Wiz said unto us.

from first post in http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/other-games/4555-academy-awards-time

Wizard, I was struck by this level of confidence, not so much that you would be willing to bet it so much as give it out as advice in the face of the possibility that you would be creating some very angry people if you were wrong.

Personally, I would want to be more that 99.9% sure. As someone pointed out elsewhere, if you can land a plane without crashing 99.9% of the time, then at each major international airport there would be several crashes a day. Maybe I'd want to be 99.999% sure. Maybe 99.99999%? Really, sooner or later otherwise you got some 'splaning to do!
"We thank with brief thanksgiving Whatever gods may be That no man lives forever, That dead men rise up never" Nor any gambler the long run see ever ........apologies to Swinburne for that last line
teddys
teddys
Joined: Nov 14, 2009
  • Threads: 150
  • Posts: 5430
February 28th, 2011 at 3:38:28 PM permalink
You wouldn't want to be more than 99.9% sure on a trivial thing like the academy awards. Landing a plane, sure. Actually, there are few things that I would want to be, or could be, more than 99.9% sure. Maybe a nuclear power plant? The risk is proportional to the probability.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 959
  • Posts: 16123
February 28th, 2011 at 3:46:59 PM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

"Colin Firth is just not going to lose".Verily the Wiz said unto us.



What I was trying to say is that the probability of Colin Firth losing was the kind of thing that is theoretically possible, but would be so unlikely that if it did happen you would suspect some kind of foul play. The odds would be on the order of magnitude as they would have been for Ralph Nader winning the 2000 election, the day before the election.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 274
  • Posts: 7188
February 28th, 2011 at 4:02:54 PM permalink
Quote: teddys

You wouldn't want to be more than 99.9% sure on a trivial thing like the academy awards. Landing a plane, sure. Actually, there are few things that I would want to be, or could be, more than 99.9% sure. Maybe a nuclear power plant? The risk is proportional to the probability.



I have been somewhat fascinated by how inadequate 99.9% is for many things, yet it still gets quoted as if more than sufficient. Atlanta and O'Hare and many more have more than 2000+ flights a day, thus one in a thousand unsafe? yikes. Do you drive everyday and get in an accident once every 3 years? Then you drive without incident better than 99.9% of your days driving. And, yep, nuclear power plant safety better be better than 99.9% .

Quote: odiousgambit

Personally, I would want to be more that 99.9% sure.



Just to clarify, I would be happy betting with odds like that, but would be cautious about broadcasting it if I had any status as someone to listen to [which I don't].

Quote: Wizard

What I was trying to say is that the probability of Colin Firth losing was the kind of thing that is theoretically possible, but would be so unlikely that if it did happen you would suspect some kind of foul play.



I don't mean to be hypercritical, and certainly you can point to being right here after all.

edits
"We thank with brief thanksgiving Whatever gods may be That no man lives forever, That dead men rise up never" Nor any gambler the long run see ever ........apologies to Swinburne for that last line

  • Jump to: