Two Dice Puzzle
There would definitely have to be a set minimum number of rolls also.
Quote: AlanMendelsonYes, I think this bet does follow the original question and the claim that the correct answer is 1/11.
Hmmmmm. Did someone mess with Alan's post?
I'm sure he just asserted that "this bet does follow the original question and the claim that the correct answer is 1/11"
Is there a trick here somewhere?
'The bet follows the ORIGINAL question' Tick. Agreement from Alan.
'The correct answer is 1/11' Well, I take that to mean that when he says 'the correct answer' he must be referring to the 'original question' because I cannot see any recent question that demands a numerical answer?
What have I missed ( apart from some BS about 1/6 )
Quote: OnceDear... 'The correct answer is 1/11' ...
Not exactly a faithful quote. He's emphasizing "the claim that the correct answer is 1/11"
So, how much casino-bank do we need to bring?
Quote: indignant99Not exactly a faithful quote. He's emphasizing "the claim that the correct answer is 1/11"
His sentence is ambiguous and 'follow' is not the best word, in my opinion.
By using a bit of sentence structure breakdown related to the use of 'and'
The bet follows the original question
and
The bet follows the claim that the correct answer is 1/11
Again, there is some room to interpret the word 'follows'. He might just be asserting that 'the claim' happened a hundred or so posts before the bet. Which would be an odd way of saying something pointless.
Frankly I don't much care.
He just offered action on a bet that both sides think has a significant advantage over the other.
It is what some of you guys were asking him to do.
Quote: rawtuffDoesn't a proposed bet like bellow follow the original question EXACTLY ? -
A person puts two dices in a cup, shake and slam the cup on the table.
A second person peeks under the cup and truthfully announces if there is at least one deuce showing or not (he will later lift the cup and show to all he wasn't lying).
If "at least one deuce" is announced, the 1/6-ers will wager 1 unit on the premise that there are two deuces under the cup( a one in six probability according to them). If they're right, they get 9 units back. If they're wrong, they lose the 1 unit wagered.
Repeat.
This bet, I believe, does follow the problem posed in the original question and the belief by many that the answer is 1/11 and the belief by others that the answer is 1/6.
If you believe the answer to the original question is 1/11 you are offering 9 to 1 that with one dice known the second die will not be a 2. If you believe the answer to the original question is 1/6 you are betting that the 1/6 chance will hit and you will win 9 units.
Quote: rawtuffDoesn't a proposed bet like bellow follow the original question EXACTLY ? -
A person puts two dices in a cup, shake and slam the cup on the table.
A second person peeks under the cup and truthfully announces if there is at least one deuce showing or not (he will later lift the cup and show to all he wasn't lying).
If "at least one deuce" is announced, the 1/6-ers will wager 1 unit on the premise that there are two deuces under the cup( a one in six probability according to them). If they're right, they get 9 units back. If they're wrong, they lose the 1 unit wagered.
Repeat.
Alan, if you're talking about this, then yes, I'll bank the bet (paying 9-for-1 as is described in his post). I don't know what kind of action people are gonna be putting down, so I'd definitely have a max-bet.
Quote: AlanMendelson... you are offering 9 to 1 ...
Wizard offered 8-to-1. Rawtuff said 9-for-1. Are you wiggling it up to 9-to-1?
A person puts two dices in a cup, shake and slam the cup on the table.
A second person peeks under the cup and truthfully announces if there is at least one deuce showing or not (he will later lift the cup and show to all he wasn't lying).
If "at least one deuce" is announced, the 1/6-ers will wager 1 unit on the premise that there are two deuces under the cup( a one in six probability according to them). If they're right, they get 9 units back. If they're wrong, they lose the 1 unit wagered.
Repeat.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI will repeat: Does anyone want to bank THIS BET:
A person puts two dices in a cup, shake and slam the cup on the table.
A second person peeks under the cup and truthfully announces if there is at least one deuce showing or not (he will later lift the cup and show to all he wasn't lying).
If "at least one deuce" is announced, the 1/6-ers will wager 1 unit on the premise that there are two deuces under the cup( a one in six probability according to them). If they're right, they get 9 units back. If they're wrong, they lose the 1 unit wagered.
Repeat.
Like I already said, yes. And to avoid confusion, that's 9-for-1 not 9-to-1.
Quote: RSLike I already said, yes. And to avoid confusion, that's 9-for-1 not 9-to-1.
Please post where and when so that I can provide the details on my forum -- and to the members on this forum. And please include what size bets you will accept.
Quote: RSLike I already said, yes. And to avoid confusion, that's 9-for-1 not 9-to-1.
There's no difference. Both expressions have a nine and both expressions have a one.
I'm kidding of course.
And both are still great odds for the banker.
I think that Alan suspects this to be a different bet to Mike's proposed one. In Wizard's we had no action or push unless one of the dice was a deuce, but in RawTuff's we have no bet unless one of the dice was a deuce. Wow. Subtle. I wish I was clever enough to create an Excel simulation of RawTuff's bet. Maybe someone from Alan's forum could do it, unbiased.
. Please find me a mutually agreed escrow an impartial adjudicator a trusted peeker and a consistent Tosser.Quote: RS.but I have a feeling most forum members would like action on the banker side.
I'd ask that the rules of what happens when a party wishes to abandon the venture early should be absolutely explicit and binding, with a sensibly high minimum number of rolls. Welching and early quitting must be made impossible.
Quote: OnceDearThere's no difference. Both expressions have a nine and both expressions have a one.
I'm kidding of course.
And both are still great odds for the banker.
I think that Alan suspects this to be a different bet to Mike's proposed one. In Wizard's we had no action or push unless one of the dice was a deuce, but in RawTuff's we have no bet unless one of the dice was a deuce. Wow. Subtle. I wish I was clever enough to create an Excel simulation of RawTuff's bet. Maybe someone from Alan's forum could do it, unbiased.
I think this is clearly different from the Wizard's bet. Are you willing to bank it?
You post on my forum. If you are willing to bank it, please post the details. I am sure you will find some willing customers.
Wizard are you willing to bank Rawtuff's described bet?
The game will use two high-quality backgammon dice with inlaid pips and a casino grade dice shaker, like those used in pai gow poker, to be supplied by me. I'm negotiable on the equipment if anybody doesn't trust me to not use loaded dice.
There will be two bets available. Again this is what I'm booking.
Two Twos:
Both dice a 2: Pays 9 to 1.
One die a 2: Loss
Neither die a 2: Push
One Two:
Both dice a 2: Loss
One die a 2: Pays 1 to 11.
Neither die a 2: Push
I'm looking for this to be worth my time.
Quote: rawtuff
A person puts two dices in a cup, shake and slam the cup on the table.
A second person peeks under the cup and truthfully announces if there is at least one deuce showing or not (he will later lift the cup and show to all he wasn't lying).
If "at least one deuce" is announced, the 1/6-ers will wager 1 unit on the premise that there are two deuces under the cup( a one in six probability according to them). If they're right, they get 9 units back. If they're wrong, they lose the 1 unit wagered.
Repeat.
Will you bank this bet? If so, may I put this info on my website's forum so that those interested can participate? Thanks.
Quote: RawTuffA second person peeks under the cup and truthfully announces if there is at least one deuce showing or not (he will later lift the cup and show to all he wasn't lying).
And of course, if the peeker had not paid close attention to both dice, and he says nothing and then it's subsequently seen that there is indeed a deuce showing, then he gets the holy cr4p beaten out of him.
X100Quote: IbeatyouracesI'm going to go out on a limb and predict they won't accept the bet and make some lousy excuse.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI'm going to go out on a limb and predict they won't accept the bet and make some lousy excuse.
I second this.
Quote: rawtuff
A person puts two dices in a cup, shake and slam the cup on the table.
A second person peeks under the cup and truthfully announces if there is at least one deuce showing or not (he will later lift the cup and show to all he wasn't lying).
If "at least one deuce" is announced, the 1/6-ers will wager 1 unit on the premise that there are two deuces under the cup( a one in six probability according to them). If they're right, they get 9 units back. If they're wrong, they lose the 1 unit wagered.
Repeat.
Quote: AlanMendelsonOne more time: will anyone bank this bet? This is my third time asking. If you will bank it, state your limits and time and place. I think I have some customers for you.
Quote: RawtuffA person puts two dices in a cup, shake and slam the cup on the table.
A second person peeks under the cup and truthfully announces if there is at least one deuce showing or not (he will later lift the cup and show to all he wasn't lying).
If "at least one deuce" is announced, the 1/6-ers will wager 1 unit on the premise that there are two deuces under the cup( a one in six probability according to them). If they're right, they get 9 units back. If they're wrong, they lose the 1 unit wagered.
I'll bank that. The minimum bet (against me) is $10 and my maximum is $100. I will be prepared to do this for hours. Wagers must be settled after each roll. I'm flexible on any public location in Vegas. I am also flexible on the time.
I'm not sure if "get 9 units" back means 9 to 1 or 9 for 1, but I'll book it either way. In fact, if it means "for 1" then I'll make my limits more liberal: $5 to $200.
Quote: AlanMendelsonThanks Wizard. I will post this on my forum and see who will respond.
You're welcome, and thank you. Please try to get a clarification whether the "get 9 units back" includes the original wager or not. Again, I'll book it either way.
Quote: IbeatyouracesWould love to see this on video as well.
I would happily agree to that.
Quote: rudeboyoiI volunteer to be the peeker.
Quote: surrender88sI think it's just great that we got 300+ posts on this, and I wish I could watch the action in person.
I'd lay good odds the other side flakes.
Quote: WizardI'd lay good odds the other side flakes.
I second that.
I still say there has to be a minimum number of rolls. Because I guarantee that if the very first roll is a 2-2, they'll quit and say "I told you so."
Kindly keep us posted Wiz; I'm attempting to move moderate amounts of heaven and earth to get up to Vegas this Friday through the following Monday or Tuesday and would love to observe any action that develops.
Quote: Wizard
That's dirty.
Quote: LoquaciousMoFWI'm hoping that the first challenger wins 2 times out of 12, boastfully posts on Alan's board, and causes a flood of more takers.
Kindly keep us posted Wiz; I'm attempting to move moderate amounts of heaven and earth to get up to Vegas this Friday through the following Monday or Tuesday and would love to observe any action that develops.
You'll be here for MonkeyFest, which by accounts looks like the challenger is flaking. If anything develops with this, you're more than welcome to attend and I'll keep you notified if the details if they aren't made public.
Alan began by saying he'd fire or not hire anyone who thought it was 1-11, as the very idea boggled his mind. He followed it up with a bunch of irate posts against 1-11. It appears he eventually conceded the fact that it is indeed 1-11. And he is now... trying to get members of his own forum to bet against this 1-11?
Am I reading this right?
Quote: FaceSomeone help me out here...
Alan began by saying he'd fire or not hire anyone who thought it was 1-11, as the very idea boggled his mind. He followed it up with a bunch of irate posts against 1-11. It appears he eventually conceded the fact that it is indeed 1-11. And he is now... trying to get members of his own forum to bet against this 1-11?
Am I reading this right?
I don't know if that is right or not, but if he switched sides, then why wouldn't he book the action at 9 to 1 himself?
Quote: WizardI don't know if that is right or not, but if he switched sides, then why wouldn't he book the action at 9 to 1 himself?
That's sort of why I'm asking.
After offering the wager details from rawtuff, Alan posted this...
Quote: AlanMendelsonYes, I think this bet does follow the original question and the claim that the correct answer is 1/11.
I read this as Alan conceded it was indeed 1-11. Of course, now that I read it again, he could just be stating that the wager is in line with that belief, as opposed to him personally. But no matter which way is wrong, neither of the conclusions make sense.
Either Alan still believes it to be 1-6, yet won't risk his own money on what is a decent advantage, or...
He now believes it to be 1-11 and is throwing his own people to the slaughter.
I'm just trying to figure out which it is.
I think this bet monetizes the original question. Here is what I posted on my forum to explain the bet and if this not correct please let me know:
1. Two dice are in a cup or other device, shaken and in the cup placed on the table.
2. A witness will peek. If a 2 is shown the bet is on.
3. If a 2 is not shown, there is no betting.
4. In both cases, the cup will be removed and the dice can be viewed. This will prevent the original dice from showing 2-2 and the witness lying.
5. With one deuce the bet is on (#2) and if there is not a second bet the "player" will lose their bet.
6. With one deuce the bet is on (#2) and if there is a second deuce the "bank" will pay either 9-to-1 or 9-for-1 (the Wiz doesn't care.)
I also wrote: The Wizard says he will do it in any public venue in Vegas and he limits the bets from $10 to $100 each.
Personally, I still believe there is a 1/6 chance that once one die is identified as a 2 that the other die will be a 2 as well. That's a 1/6 chance and the Wizard is willing to pay 9-to-1 or 9-for-1 if that happens.
Quote: AlanMendelsonHas there been a misunderstanding here?
Yes, but it appears it's not of the bet, rather just me not understanding you.
You posted the details asking if anyone would take the bet. You said you "may have some customers", you "could find some willing customers", you "will post on your forum to see if anyone wants to take it up" (not actual quotes). Yet in none of this have I seen "I, Alan Mendelson, accept the challenge".
You're so certain you'd hire and/or fire people unless they answered 1-6. You do gamble. You prefer dice over all else.
Here's a dice gamble which, by your math, would line your pockets. Not only line your pockets with actual cash, but put the feather of defeating the best of WoV in your cap. But you defer the opportunity... why?
I might bet the Wiz I could run UP any DOWN escalator in a specified amount of time. He might show the math that it's impossible, and I might concede to him. But if I didn't concede, you can bet your ass I'd be on site running the race I said I would do. Refusing to concede, continuing my claim, but then conning Mission into running it for me... that would make no sense. It's not Mission's claim, it's mine.
This is yours. Why are you on the sidelines?
Quote: AlanMendelsonPersonally, I still believe there is a 1/6 chance that once one die is identified as a 2 that the other die will be a 2 as well. That's a 1/6 chance and the Wizard is willing to pay 9-to-1 or 9-for-1 if that happens.
If you feel the odds are 1 in 6, why not put up your own money?
The only issue I have with your wording is I'm concerned about collusion between the peeker and the bettor. I'm not going to tolerate the bettor sometimes betting small and sometimes big if there is a peeker who can tip him off to the outcome.
Again, if cup will always be lifted, why have a peeker at all?
I personally don't bet against people -- with the exception of playing poker. I limit my betting to against casinos. And for years I was opposed to playing any cash games and only played tournaments since it was a limited liability. Thats a moral judgment of mine. I said before I would not partiicipate in any bet.
But getting back to the peeker.
After the peeker determines there is a 2 or there isn't a 2 the cup would be lifted.
As I mentioned on my forum, you want to lift the cup to verify. What if the peeker lied about the two dice landing as 2-2? What if the peeker lied about even one deuce? Lifting the cup after the "call" is only fair. This way, it doesn't matter who the peeker is.
Quote: Face
This is yours. Why are you on the sidelines?
As I mentioned above, I won't participate in betting against individuals. However, at least two people on my forum indicated they would bet. Now let's see if they will go through with it.
Quote: AlanMendelson
I personally don't bet against people -- with the exception of playing poker. I limit my betting to against casinos. And for years I was opposed to playing any cash games and only played tournaments since it was a limited liability. Thats a moral judgment of mine. I said before I would not partiicipate in any bet.
Thanks for the explanation. Not that you owed one, but not knowing was bothering me. I feel better now.
