Jackpot Jay's Prop Bet - Page 3

shaniac · #21 08-26-2005, 02:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If fields get back down to 2002-2003 levels

[/ QUOTE ]

What's that like a 2-table Sit-n-Go?

[ QUOTE ]
...if the poker boom cools and the buyin increases to 25K

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it's doubtful BOTH will happen.

[ QUOTE ]
Who would others take as their 10 if forced?

[/ QUOTE ]

Taking into account youth, health and the likelihood they'll still be around in 2012 (I think Gus is a bad pick because he doesn't seem to take the WSOP too seriously), I'd take:

Phil Ivey, Rob Mizrachi, Michael Mizrachi, Daniel Negreanu, John Juanda, Scott Fischman, Chris Ferguson, Allen Cunningham, Tuan Le and David Pham.

Rosie5 · #22 08-26-2005, 03:10 AM

If i took this bet when he proposed it I would've won it already by choosing matusow. there was a 2+2 thread about this before this year's main event and I thought to myself that he was a staple

/not good at math, Just sayin

poincaraux · #23 08-26-2005, 02:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I know nothing about prop betting butthis seemed like an extrmely easy bet to take if it were for real.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why people offer prop bets.

My favorite is: pick 20 people at random. I'll lay you even money that at least one of them was born within one day of your birthday.

XXXNoahXXX · #24 08-26-2005, 02:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know nothing about prop betting butthis seemed like an extrmely easy bet to take if it were for real.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why people offer prop bets.

My favorite is: pick 20 people at random. I'll lay you even money that at least one of them was born within one day of your birthday.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you explain the logic behind this bet, why its a good or bad one?

Jordan Olsommer · #25 08-26-2005, 03:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]

can you explain the logic behind this bet, why its a good or bad one?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the poster might have the details of the bet wrong, because by my calculations you'd need 87 people to have a 51% chance of one of them being born the day before, the day after, or the day of your birthday.

Since it's these three days that qualify, the odds of a random person being born within one day of your birthday are 3/365, so the odds of a random person not being born within one day are 362/365. (362/365)^87 ~= .49, so you'd have a 51% chance that someone in that group of 87 was born within that three-day period.

However this does sound similar to a bet of "Pick 22 people at random and I'll bet you even money that two of them have the same birthday", which is a bad bet to take (good bet for the person proposing it), since the odds of that happening are approximately 51%

#26 08-29-2005, 02:27 AM

Jordan your not doing the math right, if u have 30 people there is a 70 percent chance two will have b-day on the same day. Somebody else can chime in with the math, but i promise u did it wrong

#27 08-29-2005, 02:31 AM

Sorry i only read the first part of your post, and my reading comprehension is evidently lacking tonite

poincaraux · #28 08-29-2005, 12:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

can you explain the logic behind this bet, why its a good or bad one?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the poster might have the details of the bet wrong,

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops! I did get the details wrong. You can find the answer, along with all of the math, here. I was talking about the "almost birthday" problem, which comes up at the end of the page. The bet should be that two people were born within one day of eachother (not, as I said in the original post, within one day of you). Pretty dumb mistake on my part .. sorry about that! For what it's worth, I did remember that 20 people is way more than you need to make this bet.