|1 vote (10%)|
|3 votes (30%)|
|5 votes (50%)|
|1 vote (10%)|
10 members have voted
I proposed a bet that was accepted on the basis of the below
*On your gut feelings, do you think I can guess the sequence of completely random coin flips *better*than you can? If you think not, AND JUST ON YOUR GUT FEELING,
no checking it out on the internet!, or any other source,
I'll then explain the bet, then you can decline or accept.
*the bet was accepted in principal pending clarification, which was:
*Here's the proposal: You state you think a defined sequence of 3 coin tosses will be the next tosses, like this: HHH or HHT or TTH or TTT or WHATEVER , any sequence of three. I will look at your proposed sequence and consult my horoscope; I will then declare whether or not I think a different sequence of 3 random tosses will come BEFORE your guess.
"Precisely, we toss the computer coin until one of these sequences comes up. If your sequence comes up first, I give you [x amount]. If my sequence comes up first, you give me [same amount]. "
With just a few more qualifiers we were good; the trust between us is fully in place. At the time, I told him I didnt know how the hocus pocus worked [but I do now]. He accepted the conditions and made the bet. I let him toss the coin!
At this time he concedes the bet.
*Did I cheat him with a dishonest proposal? Vote.
BTW I will make this same bet with anyone here who has not been cited for welching. The only qualification is that you must give me a chance to keep betting until I get into the winning column at least one bet size to the positive, or until I cry uncle.
I haven't seen it before, but I can definitely see how you have a sure win based on the conditions you gave. My in spoiler.
If you always know the person's sequence, your sequence will always be the opposite coin in front of their first 2 coins. That way, unless their coins come exactly in the first 3 flips, you will always win 1 flip before them. So you should win at least 7 of every 8 times, probably more.
That said, you said "whether" you would take a different sequence. I don't know what exceptions you would make, or what would happen if you declined their sequence. Was that just a turn of phrase, or part of the con?
I think if you tried this on a child, I would consider it cheating. On an adult, caveat emptor, so I said not a cheat. But it's also possible I've misidentified the trick.
BBB, I am impressed that you figured that out on your own. The precise hocus pocus I was to follow was
1. Your first call should be the opposite of their second call.
2. Your second two calls should be the same as their first two calls.
I threw in the 'whether' bit, trying to make it harder to figure out what I was up to. I also told him there would be times I would decline to pick a different sequence, on the same basis. I planned in fact to keep obfuscating since my edge was supposedly so large I could afford to give some of it up.
I am denied the ability to crow about this because unlike Babs I was unable to figure out why and how it worked. I came across a webpage with the trick, but it only gave the hocus pocus, not why it worked, it just hinted at it. I checked a different webpage and it gave no reason why it should work. I kept fighting the idea that one sequence is as likely as another, how could it matter? Finally, though,
This really confused me. I thought these were all completely separate series of three tosses. That has to be made clear for the bet to be fair.
I do see some votes for "you cheated" - well, OK
Personally, I think an element of subterfuge is allowable, but I respect the opposite opinion. Some proposition bet enthusiasts go too far in my book too, as there should be an unexpressed groundfloor understanding of the rules without the bet being merely about seeking loopholes in that. Such as betting on whether various cars going by an intersection will come to a full stop or a rolling stop, and having the 'full stop' bettor then jump out in front of the car [such as I believe happened to the Wizard]. But even that can be fun if the stakes are minimal, as was the case on the coin flipping.
I did give a full example showing that we were not betting on unique events. In fact my betting partner indicated he also felt this might be the gist of it, if it worked, and rightly could have claimed he could get out of it at that point without penalty. He did not do so, which again is kudos to his character .
At the point where I realized how it worked I also told him that [without details] so that he could bail.
It was just a fun experiment at these stakes.
I think that makes it a non-issue for me. If it was for significant stakes, I might have a problem with it. Hustling is one thing, but this just sounds like a "bar bet" between friends.Quote: odiousgambit
But even that can be fun if the stakes are minimal, as was the case on the coin flipping.
I've been on both sides of these types of wagers. For the ones where I was the loser, I really didn't mind the few bucks. I consider it paying to see what the trick is, knowing it was probably not really a fair wager. Sometimes it is just an investment that pays dividends when I try the same trick on other unsuspecting friends! :)