Two Dice Puzzle
Quote: surrender88sPeeker or no peeker, the bet should be made, clearly and visibly, before the cup of dice is placed face down on the table. In other words, the bet should be established before the peek happens. And remember, no 2 = a push.
I think you missed what "the bet" is.
this bet starts after knowing that one of two dice is a 2.
Quote: AlanMendelsonAs 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.
If there must be a peeker then I will ask the better to state his bet amount in advance of the peeker peeking. For example, "If the peeker indicates at least one two, then I will bet $100." I will not be tricked into a collusion scheme.
Personally, I think if you bet a nickel (five cents) it would be just as good.
This is more a test of theory than a financial gamble. We can keep track of nickels.
If you want to do nickels, then nickels fall within my moral boundaries. But not more than 5-cents. My parents used to bet 5-cents against each other on the World Series so I think its okay.
Quote: AlanMendelsonWhy not simply make it a flat bet? $10 for each and every time. Frankly, I think that's fair.
That's fine with me.
Quote:So if we have two peekers, Your peeker and the wizards peeker, and your peeker only looks at one die, and he doesn't say 'At Least one of the dice is a deuce, do you want the bet to be off? Or do you still want the bet to be on if the wizard's peeker says 'at least one of the dice is a deuce'?
It makes a hell of a difference. There would be a lot more action and a lot less pushes if you take the action when the wizard's peeker looked. Totally different odds would apply and we can guess that the odds would be 1/6 on your subset of the bets and 1/11 in the full set of the wizards bets. Or do you assert (again) that it makes no difference?
Alan didn't give a yes/no type of answer, but he did say
Quote:You only need one person to do this and I don't think it matters who that person is
Well. It rather matters to me. If it is the bettor who peeks, then he would, of course, only bet when he sees a pair of dice, so I'm calling Alan WRONG on that assertion.
I'm happy to bank this. But it will not happen. I offer a side bet of a beer and a bag of chips that Alan and friends will crow about how 'The Wizard's crowd' made it impossible.
You are all too late to take my sidebet.
Quote: OnecedarFFS Bob, keep up. If the die with the two is not identified or eliminated, there is no action. No bets would be accepted at any odds.
Quote: Bob
So in other words, you're running away from this with crocodile tears. Next we'll hear how all you're frazzled nerves over this gave you projectile vomiting.
It doesn't matter who peeks because after the "call" and after the bet is made or if there is no bet the cup will be removed and everyone will see what the two dice were. You complain and cause trouble for no reason at all.
In fact, the terms of the bet have been worked out -- without your help.
Now we'll sit back and see who wants to do the bet. I posted it on my forum -- and you can see that.
In the meantime if you would like to take two dice and do this at home yourself -- with or without any help or witness -- please do and let us know what you find out. Use a flat bet of $10 and see if you win or lose.
Quote: AlanI think you missed what "the bet" is.
this bet starts after knowing that one of two dice is a 2.
All the peeker does is signal if there is at least one 2 or not and that starts the bet or signals another two-dice roll.
And just to make sure the peeker didn't screw up, we will lift the cup after the peeker makes the call.
Yes, YOU please peek.
For the US venue, I'll accept Wizard as escrow and Wizard as peeker if that's acceptable to you and to him. I won't be betting against the Wizard.
If Alan would care to do it for nickels as a live video conference, I'm sure we could arrange that too.
Oh... And if it's announced that 'at least one of the dice is a deuce', I'd be happy for that die to be pulled from under the cup immediately and before the bet.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI will even make the bet lunch -- but I can't do it for "real money."
Would you play poker outside of the casino?
Quote: rudeboyoiWould you play poker outside of the casino?
I do not play poker for money outside of a casino such as in someone's home.
I don't care if there is or is not a cup, I'm just curious why you insist there be a cup.
I might be interested in wagering something other than cash. What about gift cards? :) I'm open for suggestions.
Quote: RSAlan, question/curiosity. Why does the cup matter? If the person is flat betting, and they will always bet whenever at least one die is a deuce....what purpose does the cup hold?
I don't care if there is or is not a cup, I'm just curious why you insist there be a cup.
I might be interested in wagering something other than cash. What about gift cards? :) I'm open for suggestions.
The cup was mentioned by Rawtuff and I simply copied and pasted Rawtuff's bet as he posted it on this forum.
Let's do lunch as a bet. No one can argue with a social activity as lunch. Gift cards to me are just a form of money.
Quote: Wizard
I'm not sure if "get 9 units" back means 9 to 1 or 9 for 1
For the record I meant this to be 9 for 1. Bettor wagers 1 unit, if there are two deuces he gets 9 units (total) back. Sorry if this was unclear.
It was meant to be in tune with previously proposed bet, only altering some cosmetic details. Plus, it is right about the middle between 1/6 and 1/11 fair odds(a bit more favorable for the bettor). Of course, 9 to 1 is also a great odds for the banker.
I only made this post to try and recreate the original question in the form of proposed bet as close as it gets. No need for a peeker or a cup for that matter, but it appeared to me that the previously proposed bets details somehow looked unfair/not in tune with the OP question and that's why the 1/6 supporters wouldn't take it.
This on the other hand is recreating the question verbatim, hence no reason for the 1/6 believers not to put their money in.
I agree, for fear of collusion, the peeker has to be the banker or flat betting all the way (or both).
Quote: rawtuffFor the record I meant this to be 9 for 1. Bettor wagers 1 unit, if there are two deuces he gets 9 units (total) back. Sorry if this was unclear.
It was meant to be in tune with previously proposed bet, only altering some cosmetic details. Plus, it is right about the middle between 1/6 and 1/11 fair odds(a bit more favorable for the bettor). Of course, 9 to 1 is also a great odds for the banker.
I only made this post to try and recreate the original question in the form of proposed bet as close as it gets. No need for a peeker or a cup for that matter, but it appeared to me that the previously proposed bets details somehow looked unfair/not in tune with the OP question and that's why the 1/6 supporters wouldn't take it.
This on the other hand is recreating the question verbatim, hence no reason for the 1/6 believers not to put their money in.
I agree, for fear of collusion, the peeker has to be the banker or flat betting all the way (or both).
Rawtuff I think you did a good job which is why I immediately supported this. Thanks.
Quote: AlanMendelsonRawtuff I think you did a good job which is why I immediately supported this. Thanks.
I completely agree with Alan on that point. Thanks RawTuff. Sorry if I referred to you as RuffTuff or Rawstuff in any posts.
I'll have a UK video enabled venue set up in the next day or so.
Quote: AlanMendelsonThe cup was mentioned by Rawtuff and I simply copied and pasted Rawtuff's bet as he posted it on this forum.
Let's do lunch as a bet. No one can argue with a social activity as lunch. Gift cards to me are just a form of money.
Yes, I noticed RawTuff's post has mention of a cup. But that doesn't answer my question. Why do you insist there be a cup? Wouldn't it be the same thing, as say, being at a craps table, with your eyes closed (ie: cup over dice), then having a friend next to you say "at least one die is a 2" then you open your eyes (ie: cup is lifted)? Or rather.....no reason to close your eyes at all. Just curious if/why you think a cup changes anything and why you insist on it.
Lunch bet -- OK, sounds good to me. I don't know about details, but I'm thinking something like:
-We do X amount of rolls (50, 100, 500, a million?) and we simply keep a tally as if we were playing for real money. If I win, I get 1 fake dollar. If you win, you get 8 fake dollars. Whoever has the most fake dollars at the end of the X number of rolls, wins, and buys the other lunch/dinner, up to Y amount.
Are you located in LV or somewhere else? Originally I thought LV...but then I read something either on your forum or your website making me think you lived in SoCal.
Not that I needed to for my own benefit, but I ran a simulation of this game. It is defined as a win when both dice are a 2, and a loss when only 1 is. Here are the results of a billion bets resolved:
Wins=90912246 (0.090912)
Losses=909087754 (0.909088)
Note how 0.090912 = 1/10.9996
Below is the code:
void two_show(void)
{
int die1,die2;
__int64 count,tot_win,tot_loss;
tot_win=0;
tot_loss=0;
count=0;
do
{
do
{
die1=1+genrand_int32()%6;
die2=1+genrand_int32()%6;
}
while ((die1!=2)&&(die2!=2));
count++;
if ((die1==2)&&(die2==2))
tot_win++;
else
tot_loss++;
}
while (count<1000000000);
printf("Wins=%I64i\t%f\n",tot_win,(double)tot_win/(double)(count));
printf("Losses=%I64i\t%f\n",tot_loss,(double)tot_loss/(double)(count));
return;
}
Start with a bowl of nuts in the middle. Whenever one side wins, take the appropriate number of nuts (1 or 9)
When you decide to stop playing, or run out of nuts, count them up.
Quote: Rob.SingerAlan,...the wizard is only paying 9 units for something that has 11-1 odds.
Quote: Alan MendelsonRob, what are you talking about?...Now you are saying it's 1/11 ??
PS: Rob Singer wants to do the bet (this weekend?) in Tahoe "until the cows come home", as long as the die with a deuce on it is removed and it's put in sight.
I can be in Vegas Friday night and Saturday. I have to be back in LA Sunday morning for a charity bowling event. I'm not good ... but I can help raise money.
Look, I'd be more than happy to do this with the Wizard or with you for lunch. I would gladly bet a $100 lunch representing 10 bets. That is, ten times when at least one 2 shows. I think ten bets is enough. It could take a a hundred rolls to have at least one two showing.
I don't insist on the cup. I will accept any changes that still maintain the basic idea that with one die showing a 2 it's a 1/6 chance for me.
And what we would do is play for "points."
I lose a bet that's one point.
I win a bet that's 9 points.
After ten rolls we see who has more. Want to do 20 rolls? that's okay with me. Want to do 50 rolls? Ok.
And to make it more fun... my son who happens to be my cameraman is going to be in Vegas this weekend, so if I have advance notice, I can tell him to bring the camera and we can put this on YouTube.
Quote: RSThis is pure gold. On Alan's forum:
Quote: Rob.SingerAlan,...the wizard is only paying 9 units for something that has 11-1 odds.
Quote: Alan MendelsonRob, what are you talking about?...Now you are saying it's 1/11 ??
Singer will want to re-roll the second die.
PS: Rob Singer wants to do the bet (this weekend?) in Tahoe "until the cows come home", as long as the die with a deuce on it is removed and it's put in sight.Not sure if that changes the odds or not. Don't feel like thinking about that right now.
Quote: RS
PS: Rob Singer wants to do the bet (this weekend?) in Tahoe "until the cows come home", as long as the die with a deuce on it is removed and it's put in sight.
Not sure if that changes the odds or not. Don't feel like thinking about that right now.[/spoiler]
Oddly enough, it does not, so long as the bet is still placed and the 'other die' is untouched.
Quote: OnceDearQuote: RS
PS: Rob Singer wants to do the bet (this weekend?) in Tahoe "until the cows come home", as long as the die with a deuce on it is removed and it's put in sight.
Not sure if that changes the odds or not. Don't feel like thinking about that right now.[/spoiler]
Oddly enough, it does not, so long as the bet is still placed and the 'other die' is untouched.
Nope, it doesn't make one iota of a difference. But let Singer keep thinking it does. That way you can win all of his fictional VP winnings :-)
Quote: WizardWith Two for the Show, I'm agreeable to having a peeker, but the dice must be revealed either way (to prove the peeker wasn't lying). That pretty much eliminates the need for a peeker, but what do I know?
Am I the only one who thinks that somebody is going to take this bet under the impression that he can get some sort of tell from the peeker?
Here's an idea, if the bettors are willing to accept 8-1:
Place the bet, then roll the dice openly
If the roll is two 2s, the bet pays 8-1
If the roll is one 1, the bet loses
If the roll is no 2s, the bet pays 1-20
e.g. if the bet is $10, then the "player" gets $80 (plus the original $10 bet) for a 2-2, loses the $10 for, say, a 1-2 or a 2-6, and gets 50 cents (plus the original $10 bet) for, say, a 5-5 or a 6-3.
Quote: IbeatyouracesTells won't matter anyway. They will make the bet EVERY TIME at least one 2 shows. Not just when 2-2 shows.
Maybe they will bet a lot if they get a tell of two twos and small otherwise.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI can be in Vegas Friday night and Saturday.
There is already a small gathering planning for Friday night at the SLS. How about coming to that and the two of us will play for lunch money.
Quote: WizardMaybe they will bet a lot if they get a tell of two twos and small otherwise.
Sure, but I thought you all agreed to flat bets?
Quote: IbeatyouracesSure, but I thought you all agreed to flat bets?
Only Alan agreed to that but he won't bet more than lunch money. I'm hoping to get somebody who will bet in the hundreds or more.
Quote: Wizard... I'm hoping to get somebody who will bet in the hundreds or more.
I don't blame you, or anyone else for that matter.
Again though. I suggest there should be a minimum number of rolls.
Quote: RS
PS: Rob Singer wants to do the bet (this weekend?) in Tahoe "until the cows come home", as long as the die with a deuce on it is removed and it's put in sight.Not sure if that changes the odds or not. Don't feel like thinking about that right now.
does that mean
shake the cup, slam it on the table
peek, if there is at least one two showing, announce it
new step: pull a two from under the cup and set it in plain view
place bet that the remaining die is a two (mandatory bet, not decide whether or not to place the bet)
then the question: what are the odds that the die that is still hidden from view is also a 2
You have to trust the person who is pulling the die from the cup to not move the other one.
If that is what he means, then the odds are the same as if you left the die under the cup. There is just a new step - instead of just hearing that at least one of the dice is a two, you also get to see that at least one of the dice is a two.
Quote: Wizard39 pages and I'm still waiting for somebody to explain why there needs to be a peeker if both dice will be revealed anyway.
Of course there doesn't need to be either one. My way if doing this is:
1) shake dice in the cup and then turn upside down on the table
2) reveal both dice
3) pay 8:1 if dice show 2-2
4) get paid 1:1 if dice show 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, or 2-6
5) no action if dice show any other combination
Quote: IbeatyouracesOf course there doesn't need to be either one. My way if doing this is:
1) shake dice in the cup and then turn upside down on the table
2) reveal both dice
3) pay 8:1 if dice show 2-2
4) get paid 1:1 if dice show 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, or 2-6
5) no action if dice show any other combination
Much like peek vs. just seeing the dice openly, for some reason a "push" is different than only betting when at least one 2 is present:
Quote: AlanMendelsonI think you missed what "the bet" is.Quote: surrender88s
Peeker or no peeker, the bet should be made, clearly and visibly, before the cup of dice is placed face down on the table. In other words, the bet should be established before the peek happens. And remember, no 2 = a push.
this bet starts after knowing that one of two dice is a 2.
Quote: IbeatyouracesOf course there doesn't need to be either one.
Agreed. I don't see anyone insisting that cup or peeker are needed, except for Alan. But if that's what floats his boat.
Quote: OnceDearAgreed. I don't see anyone insisting that cup or peeker are needed, except for Alan. But if that's what floats his boat.
Sure. The peeker is going to to say "at least one die has a 2 showing". At this point the dice will read either 1-2, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 3-2, 2-4, 4-2, 2-5, 5-2, 2-6, or 6-2. That's a 1 in 11 chance of it being 2-2.
Quote: IbeatyouracesIf I were in the area I would. I'd have an 18.18% edge over the 1/6ers.
There would definitely have to be a set minimum number of rolls also.
Nobody asked me, but I have a suggestion anyway, for number of rolls...
- 360 total rolls, or
- 110 bet resolutions.
Quote: WizardOnly Alan agreed to that but he won't bet more than lunch money. I'm hoping to get somebody who will bet in the hundreds or more.
I think Wizard needs to hype this a bit more, think boxing-promoter behavior. Sell the experience of getting to place the bet. Get paid 9 to 1! on the fate of six-sided dice! This opportunity won't be around forever. You want action? YOU GOT ACTION!
Quote: pewAlan is a real stickler about taking things literally so he wants to follow the bet as close to the writing of the original problem as possible. Singer on the other hand just wants to obfuscate and confuse the issue to the point where everyone just says "forget it I can't take this BS any more" then he will claim victory.
Again, Singer has absotively (my word) 0.0000...% credibility in the gaming world. And every expert, mathematician or AP will agree with that, I'm certain. He's the John Patrick of video poker.
Quote: pewAlan is a real stickler about taking things literally so he wants to follow the bet as close to the writing of the original problem as possible. Singer on the other hand just wants to obfuscate and confuse the issue to the point where everyone just says "forget it I can't take this BS any more" then he will claim victory.
I think this is his strategy. To confuse, mislead, deny, attack and then run away.
He's already linked this dice bet to a video poker bet -- did you see that?
I just posted on my forum conflicting statements that he has made -- first supporting 1/6 then saying it's 1/11.
It's amazing.
Anyway... I can be in Vegas to do the bet and do lunch on Saturday.
Quote: indignant99Nobody asked me, but I have a suggestion anyway, for number of rolls...
- 360 total rolls, or
- 110 bet resolutions.
A further suggestion... Use two different colored dice, and painstakingly record every single roll (video recording, and pen/paper recording). I expect this would make it crystal clear what occurs, and why.
Quote: indignant99A further suggestion... Use two different colored dice, and painstakingly record every single roll (video recording, and pen/paper recording). I expect this would make it crystal clear what occurs, and why.
No. Sorry Indie,
There is NOTHING that anyone can do to show Alan that he is wrong, or why he is wrong. He is of course wrong, but that's by the by.
He was also wrong to ever unban that other person from his own forum, but that's his lookout. Rob had only a passing interest in answering the question one way or another, so long as it presented him the opportunity to badmouth Wizard and 'the Wizard's crowd' whoever they are.
Oh I do wish Scoblete would wade back in.
You are offering me 9 for 1 for a 1/6 bet.
I like the bet.
I think the bet is better than your 1/11 with no premium if you are right.
I will buy lunch if I lose the bet.
Anybody want lunch?
