HOH v1 Mistake p.120

On page 120 he gives an example on pot odds. Given a simple die, "You're willing to bet $1 that you can roll a six. He bets $6 that you can't". It's a favorable bet because the odds against you winning is 5-to-1 but the payoff odds are 6-1.

Not really. If you think about it, you're gonna lose $7 five times and win $7 once on average. If you roll a six, you win your bet and his bet. If you roll anything else, you lose your bet and his bet.

It's blatantly obvious what he's trying to say, but it's still wrong.

[KramerTM]

[ QUOTE ]
On page 120 he gives an example on pot odds. Given a simple die, "You're willing to bet $1 that you can roll a six. He bets $6 that you can't". It's a favorable bet because the odds against you winning is 5-to-1 but the payoff odds are 6-1.

Not really. If you think about it, you're gonna lose $7 five times and win $7 once on average. If you roll a six, you win your bet and his bet. If you roll anything else, you lose your bet and his bet.

It's blatantly obvious what he's trying to say, but it's still wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHA what?

This is offensively wrong my friend. Read before you post.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
It's blatantly obvious what he's trying to say, but it's still wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it isn't. Think carefully about what you will lose and what you will win under the different scenarios.

Ok...I roll a 5. I lose my $1 bet for not rolling a 6, and I lost his $6 bet cause I did not roll a 6.

Take each sentence one at a time. "I bet $1 that I can roll a 6". So if I roll a 6, I win $1. "He bets $6 that you can't". So if I don't roll a six, I lose $6. The conceptual error here is that it's a bet. He's not just "giving" you $6 if you roll a six, he fully expects you to pay $6 if you don't because it was a bet and that's what a bet is.

It's a pretty obvious error once you see it. Call me nitpicky if you want, but the people who could possibly get confused by this are the people that actually need to be explained how pot odds work. Or they're not that good at English.

I don't get how this is offensive at all. If the mistake is there you might as well fix it.

Sorry if this was the wrong place to point it out, but I don't know where to put it.

I really wouldn't say this is a negligible mistake, which is why I posted it. 50 pages follow that are all about pot odds, and this is an error that can only matter to those it can harm.

[JohnnyFX]

I feel sorry for the people you [ QUOTE ]
be explained how pot odds work.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Or they're not that good at English.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol.

Stop before you make yourself look any sillier.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
I really wouldn't say this is a negligible mistake, which is why I posted it. 50 pages follow that are all about pot odds, and this is an error that can only matter to those it can harm.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't "lose" his $6 when you don't roll a six, any more than you lose $20 million when your lottery ticket doesn't win.

The two possibilities here are that you either roll a six, or you do not. On a fair die, 1/6th of the time you will roll the six, and therefore 1 - 1/6 = 5/6ths of the time you will not. 1/6th of the time you win your friend's $6, and 5/6ths of the time you lose your $1.
(1/6)(6) + (5/6)(-1) = 1/6, meaning that each time you make this bet, it's worth 1/6th of a dollar to you in positive expectation - there's no error.

If it's any consolation, I post without thinking things through all the time too. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go see if my grandmother is finished borrowing my ball gag and leather chaps.

[MCS]

I think it was clear from context what Harrington meant.

I understand your technical language argument, but I disagree with it as well. I don't see why anyone would interpret it the way you did.

Do you think readers are really saying to themselves, "Okay, so we're betting a dollar each...wow, now we're each betting six more!"

It may work in other books, but this is a poker book. A bet should really only mean one thing, and in a poker context that is exactly how you should interpret it at first until he explains what he's trying to say. "Common sense" is a vague term.

[smoore]

[ QUOTE ]
"Common sense" is a vague term.

[/ QUOTE ]

bahahahahaha. Perfect.

Sorry man, everyone else understood the example. I'm laying $1, he's laying $6 (Instead of the $5 that would make it an even bet with a fair die). I win.

[JohnnyFX]

If you read that post, why didn't you read Jordan's, which clearly explains the flaws in you logic. Harrington's odds were correct and you're still wrong.

If you still don't get it, please tell us what you think the correct odds should be.

I think he's saying that harrington used the wrong word, or some such, hence the "technical language" acknowledgement in an above post.

sorry to be the simpleton here, but if you've reread HOH enough times to spot this, and take the time to post it, you should reeeeeeally go out there and win a tourney or two!

I read it twice, and I am winning thank you very much /images/graemlins/grin.gif. For people who aren't reading my other posts, I do know the odds are perfectly fine, I'm saying the words used aren't.

I don't think you guys see the problem here BECAUSE you get it so naturally. This is very clearly seen by the fact that you guys thought I was talking about pot odds before even considering that I was talking about the grammar error. I've done a bit of translating before so I just caught it naturally. This is the type of mistake that can seriously throw off a reader who doesn't get what he's saying and needs to be explained the basics of pot odds.

Don't try to mock people that need pot odds to be explained for them, because I personally know at least 2 people who are winning the $50 SNGs consistently yet they are so bad at math that they can only think odds in multiples of twos (meaning 3-to-1 odds doesn't exist for them, only that it's somewhere between 2-to-1 and 4-to-1). They just did their homework by reading Sklansky's books very slowly and carefully.

I'm not saying that Sklansky's books are better, but I sure as hell can't catch a harmful error such as this one (not that I tried). HOH is a book that's gonna be around for a while, so I thought it'd be good to fix it.

[MonkeeMan]

Go back to school. Focus on reading comprehension.

[ QUOTE ]
"You're willing to bet $1 that you can roll a six. He bets $6 that you can't"

[/ QUOTE ]

You bet $1, he bets $6. You can lose $1, he can lose $6. You can win $6, he can win $1.

[KramerTM]

[ QUOTE ]
I read it twice, and I am winning thank you very much /images/graemlins/grin.gif. For people who aren't reading my other posts, I do know the odds are perfectly fine, I'm saying the words used aren't.

I don't think you guys see the problem here BECAUSE you get it so naturally. This is very clearly seen by the fact that you guys thought I was talking about pot odds before even considering that I was talking about the grammar error. I've done a bit of translating before so I just caught it naturally. This is the type of mistake that can seriously throw off a reader who doesn't get what he's saying and needs to be explained the basics of pot odds.

Don't try to mock people that need pot odds to be explained for them, because I personally know at least 2 people who are winning the $50 SNGs consistently yet they are so bad at math that they can only think odds in multiples of twos (meaning 3-to-1 odds doesn't exist for them, only that it's somewhere between 2-to-1 and 4-to-1). They just did their homework by reading Sklansky's books very slowly and carefully.

I'm not saying that Sklansky's books are better, but I sure as hell can't catch a harmful error such as this one (not that I tried). HOH is a book that's gonna be around for a while, so I thought it'd be good to fix it.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is NOTHING wrong with what Harrington says. In fact, EVERYTHING is correct down to grammar and punctuation.

Ok...to the people that still don't see it.

What is a "bet"? If "bet" means "give", then I am wrong, I'll admit it right here and now.

Now, can any of you actually bet an eyeball that 100% of the people who read the book can figure out that "bet" means "give" in that situation? If you can, then I'll bet an ear that I can find at least one person who can't be sure. So what's at stake here, an eyeball and an ear for both of us or your eyeball to my ear?

[RowdyZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok...to the people that still don't see it.

What is a "bet"? If "bet" means "give", then I am wrong, I'll admit it right here and now.

Now, can any of you actually bet an eyeball that 100% of the people who read the book can figure out that "bet" means "give" in that situation? If you can, then I'll bet an ear that I can find at least one person who can't be sure. So what's at stake here, an eyeball and an ear for both of us or your eyeball to my ear?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I can't take that bet because you are proof that not everyone can figure out a simple sentence and you probably have family so that might add a few more but I think the other 99.9992455% of the world probably understand it.

RZ

You know, I'm really getting sick of people insulting someone's intelligence over the comprehension of a sentence when at no point in this thread did I ever even suggest that I didn't get what Harrington was trying to say. From the very first post I said, "It's blatantly obvious what he's trying to say".

1) Not everyone is good at English.
2) Not everyone is good at math.
3) Not everyone is smart.
4) A decent-to-good poker player doesn't have to be any of those.

Most of you could not interpret what I thought was obvious when I said "It's blatantly obvious what he was trying to say", simply because I thought the error was easy to see if it's pointed out, plus the fact that Harrington's concept is impossible to be misinterpretted if you knew what he was trying to say. However, you all thought that I misread it. That's proof in itself that even you guys can see how easily this can be misread. Am I going to automatically credit you for being dumber than I am because you couldn't get what I was trying to imply here? Should I? No, because I should have worded it more clearly.

If you need to feed on your ego, then think about what you're saying here. You are all claiming that you have the right to ridicule others because you could read a single sentence and figure out what it was trying to describe, thus you are smarter and better than anyone who can't. If you're smarter and better, then you can say anything you want to/about them. Right? Right?

Harrington's books are great. He's obviously far better at poker than I am right now. This mistake has nothing to do with poker. It's like talking to a brick wall here. Unless "bet" means "give", the sentence is wrong. Is there something I'm missing here?

I give up. I have better things to do and it's obvious that I'm not going to convince you guys that this is an undeniable error in grammar.

[Macedon]

[ QUOTE ]
On page 120 he gives an example on pot odds. Given a simple die, "You're willing to bet $1 that you can roll a six. He bets $6 that you can't". It's a favorable bet because the odds against you winning is 5-to-1 but the payoff odds are 6-1.

Not really. If you think about it, you're gonna lose $7 five times and win $7 once on average. If you roll a six, you win your bet and his bet. If you roll anything else, you lose your bet and his bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, no, no.
Erase Harrington's first sentence about you willing to bet $1 that you can land a six. Now read on...
"He bets $6 that you can't [land a six]"
So, if you land a four or a two, you get nothing.
If you land a six, you get $6

You don't "get" anything UNLESS you land a six.

When you replace the first sentence you see that you lose $1 whenever you land anything OTHER than a six.

Wait, why am I stating the obvious here.
You see this....we all know you do.

Macedon...I'll make this as simple as I possibly can as one last attempt. This will be my last post for this thread.

What you described is not a "bet". A bet has to go both ways. What you're describing is a situation where he won't 'give' you $6 if you don't roll a six.

You don't call a bet on a flush draw in poker and then just take the bet back when you don't hit it. You have to pay the bet. That is what a bet is. Please tell me you see this, because I seriously can't make it any simpler.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless "bet" means "give", the sentence is wrong. Is there something I'm missing here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your criticism relies on an overly narrow definition of "bet." That was my point before. Perhaps the book could have been worded in such a way that is was essentially IMPOSSIBLE to misinterpret what Harrington meant. But I think the wording is correct.

Basically, like I said before, I believe you're wrong when you talk about how to interpret the word "bet."

I think saying "I bet X, you bet Y" is a common way to say that I will either lose X or win Y. So that's why I think your criticism is off base. It only works if you think the first sentence of this paragraph is wrong.

[Macedon]

[ QUOTE ]
Macedon...I'll make this as simple as I possibly can as one last attempt. This will be my last post for this thread.

What you described is not a "bet". A bet has to go both ways.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it doesn't. But I see where you are getting confused.
He bets $6 that you will not get a six. You don't have to "CALL" that bet and put in $6 of your own money. This is not poker. You can merely accept the bet, offer nothing in return, and collect only if your roll meets the particular outcome.

When someone says to you I bet you $6 that can't spit milk through your nose; if you can't do it, then it doesn't necessarily mean (unless stated) that you have to pay him $6. You WOULD have to pay him $6 if and only if you make the bet that you CAN spit milk through your nose.

Haven't you made bets with your friends that if accepted you expected zilch in return? For example, haven't you ever said to your friend that you bet him that he could't bench 250. If he couldn't do it, that doesn't mean he has to do ANYTHING in return. If he COULD do it, that doesn't mean that you have to get down on the bench and press 250lbs off YOUR scrawny body. You didn't agree to that.
But this would still be a perfectly accpetable use of the word "bet".

[ QUOTE ]

What you're describing is a situation where he won't 'give' you $6 if you don't roll a six.

You don't call a bet on a flush draw in poker and then just take the bet back when you don't hit it. You have to pay the bet. That is what a bet is. Please tell me you see this, because I seriously can't make it any simpler.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but in poker you must call the bet to continue the game. In the dice example, you needn't call a bet to continue the game, you may instead just accept the bet. But realistically, if you expected this to be a "normal" game---that is, with money risked on both sides---you would have to offer something in return for the risk your opponent is taking.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Not really. If you think about it, you're gonna lose $7 five times and win $7 once on average. If you roll a six, you win your bet and his bet. If you roll anything else, you lose your bet and his bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't lose whats not yours!

One player is betting 6 to win 7.
The other player is betting 1 to win 7.

After 6 evenly distributed rolls...
Player A has bet 36 and won 35... total -1
Player B has bet 6 and won 7... total +1

[KramerTM]

[ QUOTE ]
He [Harrington] is obviously far better at poker than I am right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is by far the funniest part of the thread.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok...I roll a 5. I lose my $1 bet for not rolling a 6, and I lost his $6 bet cause I did not roll a 6.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you turn down his bet, you lose $6 every time you roll a die for the rest of your life.

[Easy E]

So far, this is my favorite quote (adding emphasis)

<font color="blue">but I sure as hell can't catch a harmful error such as this one </font>

[Easy E]

<font color="blue">Most of you could not interpret what I thought was obvious

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
Macedon...I'll make this as simple as I possibly can as one last attempt. This will be my last post for this thread.

What you described is not a "bet". A bet has to go both ways. What you're describing is a situation where he won't 'give' you $6 if you don't roll a six.

You don't call a bet on a flush draw in poker and then just take the bet back when you don't hit it. You have to pay the bet. That is what a bet is. Please tell me you see this, because I seriously can't make it any simpler.

[/ QUOTE ]


You have a flush draw in a $15/30 game, on the turn where you're deciding whether to call the river (there will be no betting on the river, everyone has a $30 stack at this point). If you decide to bet $30 into a $70 pot, what are your pot odds? What are your implied pot odds against one opponent?

What do you expect to profit for your $30 turn bet?

After you cash out from this hand, you turn in your chips and remember that you rebought 5 times for $1000 total. The cashier gives you $1100. How much did you "win" from your betting?

Please find something better to do with your time.

I would just like to say North2 you are always welcome at my poker game.

the one point this brings up (even though the original poster's math or logic is completely out to lunch).... is people's confusion on 6 to 1 vs. 5 to 1 (some people call it (6 for 1).... but you always have to figure out how the person is referring to your own dollar.

i.e. most people would think if we bet $10 on a football game against the spread that that's a 2 to 1 bet, but it's $20 back for your $10 bet, but $10 of it was yours.

but the original poster is way off. definitely not losing $7. one chance in six of hitting, and your putting up $1 of $7 winnings. so 5 to 1 to hit six on dice, and pays 6 to 1.