Throw my game to change playoff teams? (3 Viewers)

[davearm]

Funny quote I cam by

"Profiting in gambling involves predicting the relationship of the true probabilities to the payout odds"

Why didn't you quote the sentence that came right after that one, too?

"Profiting in gambling involves predicting the relationship of the true probabilities to the payout odds. Sports information services are often used by professional and semi-professional sports bettors to help achieve this goal."

I thought there were no "true probabilities" in sports, because there were too many varibiables?

It says to "help". And those guys are full of BS anyway

There are three coins in a bag. One of them is blue on both sides. One of them is red on both sides. One of them is blue on one side and red on the other side. Without looking, you randomly pull out one of the coins and lay it on the table. You see that the side facing up is blue. What is the probability that the side facing down is also blue?

i guess 50-50

but why do i have this strange feeling you are gonna tell me 2/3

One of three things just happened.Either you laid down side A of the all blue coin, side B of the all blue coin, or the blue side of the mixed coin.

In two of those three circumstances, the opposite side is also blue.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

what up with all the riddles anyway? Keep em comin though.

I figured you could wow us all with your superior knowledge of how probability works.

I only thought about that for like 4 seconds.

Take your time then.

1/3?

No.

 

[ghostguy123]

Here's another one, from the preceding paragraph:

"In a 3-horse race, for example, the true probabilities of each of the horses winning based on their relative abilities may be 50%, 40% and 10%."

Do you believe that horses in a race have "true probabilities?"

nope. BUt still, nothing was incorrect about the statement that profiting is from knowing the true odds and the relationship to the payouts.

If you are playing craps and they decide to have a special where they pay out 7-1 on all 7's rolled, guess what you are going to bet a million times in a row.

 

[ghostguy123]

what up with all the riddles anyway? Keep em comin though.

I figured you could wow us all with your superior knowledge of how probability works.

I only thought about that for like 4 seconds.

Take your time then.

1/3?

No.

sorry, 1/3 red.

Yes 2/3 blue.

I said 1/3 thinking you asked the other side being red. I think I even expained it above before I said 1/3, lol

 

[ghostguy123]

I want more

 

[ghostguy123]

I COULD just look all these up before answering them like I would expect some on here to do, but nah.

I never heard any of these before, enjoying them.

 

[ghostguy123]

Hey Dave, you kept telling me that none of the stats stuff I mentioned had anything to do with the tanking issue (even though I never said it did anyway).

How come you havent said to same to your pal Ignoratio??

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Here's another one, from the preceding paragraph:

"In a 3-horse race, for example, the true probabilities of each of the horses winning based on their relative abilities may be 50%, 40% and 10%."

Do you believe that horses in a race have "true probabilities?"

nope. BUt still, nothing was incorrect about the statement that profiting is from knowing the true odds and the relationship to the payouts.

Surprise! You're missing the point again.

You appeared to offer up that quote as some kind of proof that "true probabilities" exist, distinct from the "fake probabilities" involved in sports. It's not just something you're making up, even Wikipedia mentions it!

I pointed out to you that the line you quoted is from a paragraph that is pretty much entirely talking about sports gambling. So if you're offering your source as support of your concept of "true probabilities," then your own source contradicts your claim that they don't exist in sports gambling.

 

[ghostguy123]

Here's another one, from the preceding paragraph:

"In a 3-horse race, for example, the true probabilities of each of the horses winning based on their relative abilities may be 50%, 40% and 10%."

Do you believe that horses in a race have "true probabilities?"

nope. BUt still, nothing was incorrect about the statement that profiting is from knowing the true odds and the relationship to the payouts.

Surprise! You're missing the point again.

You appeared to offer up that quote as some kind of proof that "true probabilities" exist, distinct from the "fake probabilities" involved in sports. It's not just something you're making up, even Wikipedia mentions it!

I pointed out to you that the line you quoted is from a paragraph that is pretty much entirely talking about sports gambling. So if you're offering your source as support of your concept of "true probabilities," then your own source contradicts your claim that they don't exist in sports gambling.

I didnt bring up that quote as anything other than a quote I randomly saw. Nothing more.

It was actually a very true quote though, would you disagree?

I am not saying it proves anything or that it is my argument for anything, but the statement is true.

 

[TheStig]

Ignor, when you asked the probality of the king, you are asking at that point in time. Normal deck, picking a random card. That is the scenario. Nobody has ever said that the odds don't change as you see more cards.

TheStig just did, and that's who I was responding to.

If there are three doors, one has a car and two a goat, your odds of picking the car are 1/3.If one door you didnt pick is opened up and it is a goat, what do you do?? It doesnt matter. Eitehr keep the one you had or change it, the odds of getting the car are 50-50 since there are two doors left and it is random. If I am wrong here, don;t just be a ##### and say I am wrong and stupid.

So, don't act like you've acted for much of this thread? Got it.For the record, you are wrong (in the normal interpretation of the problem). There's a way to interpret the problem that would make it a 50/50 proposition after seeing a goat, but if you want full credit you'll have to specify what that interpretation is.

ENlighten me as to the correct answer.

I will, but let's let TheStig have a crack at it first.

I never said the odds don't change. I said that the the original probability of selecting a king didn't change.

In regards to the Monty Hall Paradox, smarter mathematicians than you have analyzed and debated it so please spare us that you have the definitive answer to it. Monty knows what is behind all 3 doors and acts accordingly whereas say a Blackjack dealer has no more knowledge than you what card he is going to draw.

But please, share with all of us your thesis on the Monty Hall Paradox.

 

[ghostguy123]

It's like in blackjakc when the card counters get the odds in their favor then they bet a lot more money.

Unfortunately they dont have time to calculate the true odds (dave, I am sure you were gonna chime in there so I am just doing it for you), but they did calculate the odds were enough in their favor to bet big

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I didnt bring up that quote as anything other than a quote I randomly saw. Nothing more.

Ooh, I like this shtick, good idea!

"Vietnam was a country where America was trying to make people stop being communists by dropping things on them from airplanes."

 

[ghostguy123]

I didnt bring up that quote as anything other than a quote I randomly saw. Nothing more.

Ooh, I like this shtick, good idea!

"Vietnam was a country where America was trying to make people stop being communists by dropping things on them from airplanes."

yeah, pretty much.

SO was the statement I quoted true or false?

 

[ghostguy123]

Hey, anyone know where the thread about tanking went?

all this talk about coins and goats and strangers and LMAD and Vietnam and ethics and murder and cheating??

What are the true odds that this thread discusses tanking again? I say 1/1, gonna insert my own variable.

So I think, not sure, but I think I mentioned this somewhere along the lines.

If faced with a situation where winning in week 13 would eliminate you while a loss would advance you to the playoffs, I do not think it is unethical to lose on purpose.

 

[ghostguy123]

You know what I haven't had in a while??? Big League Chew

 

[TheStig]

You know what I haven't had in a while??? Big League Chew

I had a bag last year.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I never said the odds don't change. I said that the the original probability of selecting a king didn't change.

"It used to be 1/13. Now it's 1/2, but that doesn't change the fact that it used to be 1/13." That's some really insightful stuff there.

In regards to the Monty Hall Paradox, smarter mathematicians than you have analyzed and debated it so please spare us that you have the definitive answer to it.

There's not really any debate about how to resolve the paradox. As long as you're clear about the assumptions of the problem, the solution is easy. The trick is in clarifying the assumptions, which is the point - calculating probabilities is largely dependent on what we know (and don't know), and how we learned it, and related concepts.

But please, share with all of us your thesis on the Monty Hall Paradox.

Well, if I answered it the way you approached CalBear's scenario, I guess I'd have to say, "The probability that you'd win the car used to be 1/3. Then some stuff changed, but it still used to be 1/3. Just your 'predictive confidence' changed." Do I have that right?

 

[ghostguy123]

Quick question on the goat problem.

When you first walk up to the stage and the game is presented, at that time, what are your odds of walking away with the car?

Before anything is picked.

 

[DropKick]

Quick question on the goat problem.

When you first walk up to the stage and the game is presented, at that time, what are your odds of walking away with the car?

Before anything is picked.

2 in 3.

ETA: Based on a given strategy.

ETA: Also, this is clearer with bigger numbers. Suppose there were 100 doors and you were asked to pick one. If the rules of the game are that 98 of the remaining 99 doors would be eliminated. The chance that the remaining door (not picked) holding the car is 99%.

ETA: Or to use the cards example, you draw a card without looking at it and I discard 47 cards that are not an Ace. What are the odds you hold an Ace? What are the odds I hold 4 Aces? The probability of you having an Ace are 1 in 13. The probability of me holding 4 Aces is 12 in 13.

 

[ghostguy123]

Quick question on the goat problem.

When you first walk up to the stage and the game is presented, at that time, what are your odds of walking away with the car?

Before anything is picked.

2 in 3.

ETA: Based on a given strategy.

gotcha, right. Always switching is 2/3. K.

Wow, just read the part where one of the most prolific mathematicians didnt agree with this until he was shown computer simulations.

I guess he thought the host just opened a random door, but even then would it matter?

 

[TheStig]

I never said the odds don't change. I said that the the original probability of selecting a king didn't change.

"It used to be 1/13. Now it's 1/2, but that doesn't change the fact that it used to be 1/13." That's some really insightful stuff there.

In regards to the Monty Hall Paradox, smarter mathematicians than you have analyzed and debated it so please spare us that you have the definitive answer to it.

There's not really any debate about how to resolve the paradox. As long as you're clear about the assumptions of the problem, the solution is easy. The trick is in clarifying the assumptions, which is the point - calculating probabilities is largely dependent on what we know (and don't know), and how we learned it, and related concepts.

But please, share with all of us your thesis on the Monty Hall Paradox.

Well, if I answered it the way you approached CalBear's scenario, I guess I'd have to say, "The probability that you'd win the car used to be 1/3. Then some stuff changed, but it still used to be 1/3. Just your 'predictive confidence' changed." Do I have that right?

The odds changed but the original probability did not. When you selected the card there were 52 possible outcomes. Flipping the cards did not change the fact that your original selection was made from 52 cards. Your probability only changes if you predict each card before you draw from the deck.

I'm still waiting on your Paradox Thesis. Feel free to clarify the assumptions for us.

 

[ghostguy123]

OK last question about the stupid goats, promise.

If the host RANDOMLY picks a remaining door, that doesnt change anything does it? Still 2/3??

Kinda has to be right, since if he picks the car then duh, there is the car?

 

[DropKick]

Quick question on the goat problem.

When you first walk up to the stage and the game is presented, at that time, what are your odds of walking away with the car?

Before anything is picked.

2 in 3.

ETA: Based on a given strategy.

gotcha, right. Always switching is 2/3. K.

Wow, just read the part where one of the most prolific mathematicians didnt agree with this until he was shown computer simulations.

I guess he thought the host just opened a random door, but even then would it matter?

It would matter because the host could reveal the car.

 

[ghostguy123]

It would matter because the host could reveal the car.

Right, but if he doesnt, then you are at 2/3 if you switch.

I guess the odds of winning the car before you start the game would be different if it was possible for him to pick the car.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

OK last question about the stupid goats, promise.

If the host RANDOMLY picks a remaining door, that doesnt change anything does it? Still 2/3??

Yes, that changes everything. If he randomly picks one of the remaining doors and reveals a goat, then it doesn't matter whether you stick with your original choice or switch. At that point it's 50/50 (which is what I was alluding to earlier - if you interpret the problem that Monty Hall has no idea where the car is and just randomly opens doors, you can make the answer 50/50, but that's not how the problem is typically interpreted.)

 

[ghostguy123]

OK last question about the stupid goats, promise.

If the host RANDOMLY picks a remaining door, that doesnt change anything does it? Still 2/3??

Yes, that changes everything. If he randomly picks one of the remaining doors and reveals a goat, then it doesn't matter whether you stick with your original choice or switch. At that point it's 50/50 (which is what I was alluding to earlier - if you interpret the problem that Monty Hall has no idea where the car is and just randomly opens doors, you can make the answer 50/50, but that's not how the problem is typically interpreted.)

BUt, even if he randomly picks a door and it is a goat, it seems switching should still be 2/3.

Because its possible he picks the car, but once he doesnt, wouldnt that be enough info to know to switch?

 

[ghostguy123]

Because when you pick it is 1/3

Which means the other two doors combined are 2/3 no matter what, so once a goat is revlealed (whether he chose randomely or not), it would be 2/3 for the remaining two doors

or I am just seeing that wrong, lol

It just seems once the goat is revealed you have more information than what you started with, or is that new info just enough to know your new choice is 50-50?

argh

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The odds changed but the original probability did not. When you selected the card there were 52 possible outcomes. Flipping the cards did not change the fact that your original selection was made from 52 cards. Your probability only changes if you predict each card before you draw from the deck.

Before you waste any more of anyone's time, perhaps you should clearly define these terms, as you're using them:

• Odds
• Probability
• Original probability
• Predictive confidence

Add any other terms to that list that you'd like to start using as well.

I'm still waiting on your Paradox Thesis. Feel free to clarify the assumptions for us.

I'm not sure what you mean by my "thesis." I asked you the question to see what your answer would be. I might've then been able to draw some relevant analogies between the Monty Hall problem and CalBear's card question. Since the time I asked the question, though, it's already been answered and discussed by others. If there's a specific part of the paradox you're still confused about, let me know and I'll explain it to you.

 

[TheStig]

The odds changed but the original probability did not. When you selected the card there were 52 possible outcomes. Flipping the cards did not change the fact that your original selection was made from 52 cards. Your probability only changes if you predict each card before you draw from the deck.

Before you waste any more of anyone's time, perhaps you should clearly define these terms, as you're using them:

• Odds
• Probability
• Original probability
• Predictive confidence

Add any other terms to that list that you'd like to start using as well.

I'm still waiting on your Paradox Thesis. Feel free to clarify the assumptions for us.

I'm not sure what you mean by my "thesis." I asked you the question to see what your answer would be. I might've then been able to draw some relevant analogies between the Monty Hall problem and CalBear's card question. Since the time I asked the question, though, it's already been answered and discussed by others. If there's a specific part of the paradox you're still confused about, let me know and I'll explain it to you.

There are only two terms, probability and odds. They mean slightly different things.

You haven't explained, answered or solved at all the Monty Hall Paradox. You did say it was simple, but that's not not really a solution. I'm asking you because I don't know the answer and I suspect that you do. I'm sure there is an equation that you can show and explain to me whether as a player I should stay or switch.

I don't claim to know the answer to the Paradox, but you do.

 

[Insein]

How the hell is this thread 25 pages?

 

[ghostguy123]

How the hell is this thread 25 pages?

Posts like these.

No offense on that at all, cause I have 75 more posts like this than you do.............76 now

 

[DropKick]

It would matter because the host could reveal the car.

Right, but if he doesnt, then you are at 2/3 if you switch.

I guess the odds of winning the car before you start the game would be different if it was possible for him to pick the car.

I agree with both statements.

 

[TheStig]

How the hell is this thread 25 pages?

In my case because I have no real lineup decisions to debate this week.

 

[DropKick]

Because when you pick it is 1/3

Which means the other two doors combined are 2/3 no matter what, so once a goat is revlealed (whether he chose randomely or not), it would be 2/3 for the remaining two doors

or I am just seeing that wrong, lol

It just seems once the goat is revealed you have more information than what you started with, or is that new info just enough to know your new choice is 50-50?

argh

Again, let's use big numbers for clarity. Say there are 1,000 doors. And the rules are you pick a door and Monty will pick 998 randomly... he could reveal the car... he might not. When two doors are left, yours and Monty's, what are the odds that the 1st door you picked holds a car? What are the odds the at the last unpicked door holds a car? I would say they're both 1 in a thousand.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The odds changed but the original probability did not. When you selected the card there were 52 possible outcomes. Flipping the cards did not change the fact that your original selection was made from 52 cards. Your probability only changes if you predict each card before you draw from the deck.

Before you waste any more of anyone's time, perhaps you should clearly define these terms, as you're using them:

• Odds
• Probability
• Original probability
• Predictive confidence

Add any other terms to that list that you'd like to start using as well.

I'm still waiting on your Paradox Thesis. Feel free to clarify the assumptions for us.

I'm not sure what you mean by my "thesis." I asked you the question to see what your answer would be. I might've then been able to draw some relevant analogies between the Monty Hall problem and CalBear's card question. Since the time I asked the question, though, it's already been answered and discussed by others. If there's a specific part of the paradox you're still confused about, let me know and I'll explain it to you.

There are only two terms, probability and odds. They mean slightly different things.

So give me your definitions of those terms. I know what they traditionally mean, but you seem to be using them in a nonstandard way. Based on what those words usually mean, your take on CalBear's card problem is wrong, but maybe you mean something else.

Make sure to avoid using any phrases like "original probability" (as distinct from "probability") and "predictive confidence."

You haven't explained, answered or solved at all the Monty Hall Paradox. You did say it was simple, but that's not not really a solution. I'm asking you because I don't know the answer and I suspect that you do. I'm sure there is an equation that you can show and explain to me whether as a player I should stay or switch.

I don't claim to know the answer to the Paradox, but you do.

In the traditional setup to the problem, you should switch. By doing so, you increase your probability of winning a car from 1/3 to 2/3.

The simplest way to think of it is that if you switch doors, the only way you lose is if you originally picked the door with the car. Since there was a 1/3 probability that you originally picked the door with the car, there's a 1/3 probability that you'll lose if you switch (and thus a 2/3 probability that you'll win if you switch).

 

[DropKick]

How the hell is this thread 25 pages?

In my case because I have no real lineup decisions to debate this week.

I do... what do you think of Andre Brown?

 

[TheStig]

How the hell is this thread 25 pages?

In my case because I have no real lineup decisions to debate this week.

I do... what do you think of Andre Brown?

If he is you've got then he is who you've got. I like Brown, I hate his team. That said, tough sledding against Detroit's run D

 

[ghostguy123]

Because when you pick it is 1/3

Which means the other two doors combined are 2/3 no matter what, so once a goat is revlealed (whether he chose randomely or not), it would be 2/3 for the remaining two doors

or I am just seeing that wrong, lol

It just seems once the goat is revealed you have more information than what you started with, or is that new info just enough to know your new choice is 50-50?

argh

Again, let's use big numbers for clarity. Say there are 1,000 doors. And the rules are you pick a door and Monty will pick 998 randomly... he could reveal the car... he might not. When two doors are left, yours and Monty's, what are the odds that the 1st door you picked holds a car? What are the odds the at the last unpicked door holds a car? I would say they're both 1 in a thousand.

Then for the Monty Hall question, why are we assuming he knows where the car is and not that he is just picking randomly?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Because when you pick it is 1/3

Which means the other two doors combined are 2/3 no matter what, so once a goat is revlealed (whether he chose randomely or not), it would be 2/3 for the remaining two doors

or I am just seeing that wrong, lol

It just seems once the goat is revealed you have more information than what you started with, or is that new info just enough to know your new choice is 50-50?

argh

You can calculate it using Bayes' Theorem. Define the following events:

A = The door you originally chose was the car

B = The door Monty opens reveals a goat

You can calculate P(A|B). If Monty knows where the car is and always opens a door with a goat, this works out to 1/3 (and thus you have a 2/3 chance of winning by switching). If Monty doesn't know where the car is and randomly opens doors, then this works out to 1/2 (and thus your probability of winning is the same whether you stay or switch).

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Because when you pick it is 1/3

Which means the other two doors combined are 2/3 no matter what, so once a goat is revlealed (whether he chose randomely or not), it would be 2/3 for the remaining two doors

or I am just seeing that wrong, lol

It just seems once the goat is revealed you have more information than what you started with, or is that new info just enough to know your new choice is 50-50?

argh

Again, let's use big numbers for clarity. Say there are 1,000 doors. And the rules are you pick a door and Monty will pick 998 randomly... he could reveal the car... he might not. When two doors are left, yours and Monty's, what are the odds that the 1st door you picked holds a car? What are the odds the at the last unpicked door holds a car? I would say they're both 1 in a thousand.

Then for the Monty Hall question, why are we assuming he knows where the car is and not that he is just picking randomly?

Well, traditionally that's the way the problem is interpreted since that's the way the game show works. It wouldn't make sense for Monty Hall to be on stage randomly opening doors and potentially revealing the prize by accident.

 

[DropKick]

The odds changed but the original probability did not. When you selected the card there were 52 possible outcomes. Flipping the cards did not change the fact that your original selection was made from 52 cards. Your probability only changes if you predict each card before you draw from the deck.

Before you waste any more of anyone's time, perhaps you should clearly define these terms, as you're using them:

• Odds
• Probability
• Original probability
• Predictive confidence

Add any other terms to that list that you'd like to start using as well.

I'm still waiting on your Paradox Thesis. Feel free to clarify the assumptions for us.

I'm not sure what you mean by my "thesis." I asked you the question to see what your answer would be. I might've then been able to draw some relevant analogies between the Monty Hall problem and CalBear's card question. Since the time I asked the question, though, it's already been answered and discussed by others. If there's a specific part of the paradox you're still confused about, let me know and I'll explain it to you.

Odds and probability in this discussion are virtually interchangeable. In reality, probability deals with mathematical odds and "odds" deals with gambling odds - largely determined by public perception.

By original probability he (she?) means being correct with the first door choice.

By "predictive confidence" he means adjusted probability based on additional information.

 

[ghostguy123]

Well, traditionally that's the way the problem is interpreted since that's the way the game show works. It wouldn't make sense for Monty Hall to be on stage randomly opening doors and potentially revealing the prize by accident.

then I guess its not true odds?? lol.

So I guess I was right the first time, woohooo.

I am all about random

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Well, traditionally that's the way the problem is interpreted since that's the way the game show works. It wouldn't make sense for Monty Hall to be on stage randomly opening doors and potentially revealing the prize by accident.

then I guess its not true odds?? lol.

So I guess I was right the first time, woohooo.

I am all about random

Randomness was never a necessary nor a sufficient condition in your concept of "true odds."

 

[ghostguy123]

Well, traditionally that's the way the problem is interpreted since that's the way the game show works. It wouldn't make sense for Monty Hall to be on stage randomly opening doors and potentially revealing the prize by accident.

then I guess its not true odds?? lol.

So I guess I was right the first time, woohooo.

I am all about random

Randomness was never a necessary nor a sufficient condition in your concept of "true odds."

It sure was.

If I didn't say it, i guess I just figured it would be implied. How could it not be?

Rollice the dice is random. The roulette wheel is random. The cards pulled from the deck were done at random.

If it wasn't random, that would be a variable.

Unless you have yet another point here that I am not getting.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It sure was.

Rollice the dice is random. The roulette wheel is random. The cards pulled from the deck were done at random.

I select the King of Hearts from a deck of cards and place it face up on the table in front of you. What is the probability that it's a King? Is that "random?" Is that a "true probability?"

If it wasn't random, that would be a variable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_variable

 

[ghostguy123]

It sure was.

Rollice the dice is random. The roulette wheel is random. The cards pulled from the deck were done at random.

I select the King of Hearts from a deck of cards and place it face up on the table in front of you. What is the probability that it's a King? Is that "random?" Is that a "true probability?"

If it wasn't random, that would be a variable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_variable

Did you randomly select it, or did you search for it and pick it out?

Obviously the odds it is a king are 1/1.

Figuring out the odds of an occurance assumes the occurance will occur randomly, such as picking a card out of the deck at random. Hopefully I stated that right.

 

[CalBear]

I never said the odds don't change. I said that the the original probability of selecting a king didn't change.

"It used to be 1/13. Now it's 1/2, but that doesn't change the fact that it used to be 1/13." That's some really insightful stuff there.

In regards to the Monty Hall Paradox, smarter mathematicians than you have analyzed and debated it so please spare us that you have the definitive answer to it.

There's not really any debate about how to resolve the paradox. As long as you're clear about the assumptions of the problem, the solution is easy. The trick is in clarifying the assumptions, which is the point - calculating probabilities is largely dependent on what we know (and don't know), and how we learned it, and related concepts.

But please, share with all of us your thesis on the Monty Hall Paradox.

Well, if I answered it the way you approached CalBear's scenario, I guess I'd have to say, "The probability that you'd win the car used to be 1/3. Then some stuff changed, but it still used to be 1/3. Just your 'predictive confidence' changed." Do I have that right?

The odds changed but the original probability did not. When you selected the card there were 52 possible outcomes. Flipping the cards did not change the fact that your original selection was made from 52 cards. Your probability only changes if you predict each card before you draw from the deck.

So will you give me 10:1 odds on the down card being an ace? Because the "original probability" was 13:1.

If you won't give me those odds, you might be starting to understand why the original probability is meaningless.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Did you randomly select it, or did you search for it and pick it out?

Obviously the odds it is a king are 1/1.

How can you possibly know the probability is 1 if you don't know whether or not it was selected randomly? You said randomness was a necessary condition for you to calculate true probabilities.

 

[ghostguy123]

So will you give me 10:1 odds on the down card being an ace? Because the "original probability" was 13:1.

If you won't give me those odds, you might be starting to understand why the original probability is meaningless.

How is it meaningless? Those were the odds at the time. The odds changed when you saw more cards.

The payout has to reflect the new odds, or someone has a clear advantage.

 

[ghostguy123]

Did you randomly select it, or did you search for it and pick it out?

Obviously the odds it is a king are 1/1.

How can you possibly know the probability is 1 if you don't know whether or not it was selected randomly? You said randomness was a necessary condition for you to calculate true probabilities.

The odds of it being a king, if you see that it is a king, are 1/1 whether you picked it randomly or not.

My first question was just a question.

My saying the odds were 1/1 was because you see the king, at that point you know the card. Really there are no odds I guess, since you know the outcome, but if I have to answer it as odds, I would say 1/1

Starting to think we criss-crossed some of our questions and answers there.

LIke the king. If you pick it randomly, you pick it randomly. If you choose a king on purpose and take it out, that isnt random. We know this, why ask me what the odds are that the king is a king?

And odds are assuming things are random, otherwise, the odds are skewed