David please elaborate...
 

David you asked "1. How many times must you throw two dice before you are more likely than not to roll a seven?" Your answer to this querry was 4 instead of never. Please elaborate on how this can be true paying careful attention to the manner in which you worded your question. Does this mean that the rule (law) of independent trials does not apply? And is this why I always lose at the craps table? [img]/images/smile.gif[/img]


Thanks in advance,


Jimbo

or answer it at \"I disagree with a) \" below? *NM*
 

Re: David please elaborate...
 

The first question was irrelevant. I might have chosen better words. It was only there to set up the 2nd question.

Re: David please elaborate...
 

Thanks for your clarification, I thoroughly enjoy taking the time to answer an irrelevant question with a correct answer, and getting this response.


I suppose any poor wording in your poker books leading me to a wrong conclusion would be irrelevant as well since I already paid for the book.


Jimbo

Re: David please elaborate...
 

"1. How many times must you throw two dice before you are more likely than not to roll a seven?"


You must roll the dice 4 times in order to be more likely than not to roll a 7, but only as calculated before you roll the dice once. If you roll the dice 4 times and still haven't gotten a 7 your probability is still 1/6 on the next roll, though you are still more likely than not to get a 7 on your next 4 rolls.

Re: David please elaborate...
 

Bruce,


You are ALWAYS less likely to throw a 7 than all the other combinations possible. Five times less likely. Independent trials!!!


Jimbo

Re: David please elaborate...
 

Go back and read carefully. Nobody said you had to be more likely to get the seven on one throw, only in 4 throws. In any case, on one throw you are 6 times less likely to get a 7 than all the other combinations. I have no idea where you got 5 times less likely.

argh, scratch last comment
 

5 times more likely, you are correct (not about the semantic nonsense).

Re: argh, scratch last comment
 

BruceZ,


I greatly admire your math abilities (something I lack) but your comprehension of the English language belittles your greater intellect. Just more semantic nonsense for you to explore.


Best Regards,


Jimbo


ps: I certainly may have misunderstood the intent of the question but not the verbage as it is written.

Re: argh, scratch last comment
 

My continuing to argue this point with you belittles my greater intellect.


Yet still I press on...


I was refering to my statement at the top of this thread not Sklansky's question. I offered this statement because I wasn't sure if you were nit picking or really didn't understand the issue. Sklansky asked how many rolls before you were more likely... The word before implies that your chances improve after something which is nonsense. My statement above was careful to avoid this language, and was completely clear in its explanation, and it is correct as written. If you disagree, get some dice and give me 2-1 odds that I can throw you a seven.