Re: Did I win this bet?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your expression gives the right anwer (1.860-to-1) by a self-cancelling error.
[/ QUOTE ]
that's classic. also, the Odyssey was not written by Homer, but by another author of the same name.
hey! you editted your post after i quoted it. equally silly, but less quotable.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're wrong and need to think about this a lot more.
[/ QUOTE ]
quite possibly, and blatantly false, respectively.
[ QUOTE ]
You in no way can justify the factor of (9/47)*(9/46) which appears in the poster's derivation. This is supposed to be the proability of getting a flush card on both the turn and the river which is (9/47)*(8/46).
[/ QUOTE ]
the original poster didn't say that is what "9/47 * 9/46" was supposed to represent. you did. then you said that was wrong, which it was.
as for justifying it, i can, although i don't think it will be satisfactory to you. a reasonable way to solve this particular problem is to take (1 - probability of hitting on the turn) and multiply it by (1 - probability of hitting on the river given you missed on the turn) to get the probability of missing on both the turn and river, and subtract from 1 to get the probability of failing to miss on both the turn and the river. well, 1 - (1 - x)(1 - y) = 1 - [1 - x - y + xy] = x + y - xy, and it always will. the fact that the original poster used this formula without explaining how or why he derived it (and i suspect someone else derived it and he just saw the end product) doesn't make him wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
You also cannot justify the 9/47 + 8/46. This corresponds to nothing.
[/ QUOTE ]
not only can i not justify it, i can't even find it.
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you can derive the poster's equation from my equation by alegebra in no way means that the original derivation makes any sense. He explained what his terms were supposed to represent, and that explanation was wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
i repeat myself, but he didn't explain why the formula he used is or should be right.
[ QUOTE ]
I also don't post things that are "silly", and you should have considered that before you made a huge ass of yourself.
[/ QUOTE ]
well, i do post things that are silly. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
why should i consider such things before i make a huge ass of myself? will that make it easier?
[ QUOTE ]
If you say "his basic method is sound" as you have done below, then you also do not know how to properly derive this formula.
[/ QUOTE ]
ok, perhaps i should have considered my words more carefully. how about "whereas i would have used a different formula than you did, because i feel that mine gives a clearer insight into the techniques involved and permits a more straightforward and intuitive description of what each term means, your formula is algebraicly equivalent to mine and will produce the correct answer"?
|